Sitting of 15 October 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers —Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

Employment Figures
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 how many new jobs have been created in the United Kingdom since June, 1983, and what are the comparative figures of unemployment over the same period.
The Minister of State for Defence Support (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the latest date from which comprehensive employed labour force figures are available is March 1985. Figures for June will be published tomorrow. Between June 1983 and March 1985 the United Kingdom employed labour force increased by 626,000. During the same period, the number of unemployed claimants rose by 214,000.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the unemployment figures in this country, which were published 10 days ago, are the highest for the OECD, and are higher than those as a percentage of the labour force for Italy, France, West Germany and the average for the OECD? Can he tell us how it is that as unemployment has been rising, so, according to his figures, has employment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to that question is simple. The employable labour force has been increasing at a faster rate than the number of vacancies; the number of jobs has been increasing. As for comparisons with other countries, although there are some OECD figures such as those to which the noble Lord refers, unemployment is higher in a number of countries in the OECD than it is in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, trends in the United Kingdom are now favourable whereas the trends in other OECD countries are less so.
Lord Harvey of Prestbury: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the figures compare with other EC countries?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not have all the EC figures in front of me; but I have just referred to the OECD figures, and some of the OECD members are members of the European Community as well.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, can the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, really be realistically answered without a full inquiry into the so-called black economy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am certain that the noble and learned Lord is right to suggest that the figures for the so-called black economy, which are not
468
readily available, might put a different complexion upon the answers that I have given today.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, may I ask what special arrangements the Government are considering in connection with those areas of the country where the unemployment figures are much higher than the national average? I am speaking particularly of areas such as Merseyside, where according to the latest figures unemployment is over 20 per cent., and Tyne and Wear, where again the figures are over 20 per cent.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to suggest that there are wide regional variations in the figures that I have referred to this afternoon. There are a number of regional support schemes and job creation schemes, most of which have their focus in the areas to which the noble Baroness has referred.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that many of the people who have found jobs are women working part-time who were never on the unemployment register?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is factors such as that which have some effect on the figures to which I have referred. However, perhaps it is worth saying that a number of persons who are available for employment are doubtless only available for part-time employment, and the same applies to the number of jobs. So we are comparing like with like.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, despite the many figures which have just been given, is it not a fact that per thousand of the population we have more people in work in this country than any other European country except Denmark?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right to say that. He is indeed correct.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: My Lords, further to the point previously made, would the Minister not agree with me that it is a fact that the employment of males is falling, that the employment of females is falling, and that the only increase in employment—of which great play has been made in terms of jobs being created—is, as has been said, that of females working part-time? Is the Minister not concerned that the level of employment in manufacturing industry is still 25 per cent. below that of 1979? What steps are the Government intending to take, as distinct from speeches being made, to rectify this appalling situation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Lord is right when he says that the number of people employed in manufacturing industry has fallen; but the number employed in service industries has greatly increased not only in this country but right across the countries of the OECD and others. As for what the Government are doing, I believe the fact is that there are more people working in the United Kingdom now than at any time in our history. We need to ensure that the present trend of the increase in the number of jobs continues and then we shall see the number of those unemployed declining.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that these figures, so far as they go, on the whole are encouraging rather than discouraging in that the curve for new jobs is rising and the curve for new people coming into the labour market is beginning to decline? Is it not also the case that the complaint that many jobs are half-time jobs ill matches the argument for a shorter working week and even a shorter working life?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I sure my noble friend is right in what he says, but then I have despaired of encouraging noble Lords opposite long since.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I press the Minister further on the point that was raised by my noble friend Lord Murray, as to where this increase of 600,000 plus jobs has actually been created? Are they in the service sectors or are they in the manufacturing sectors? Secondly, cutting across all the figures of jobs created, while the Government can claim some statistical success, is it not a fact that if the record over the last 12 months is repeated there will be 3½ million out of work next year, which is quite an increase on the present number?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, indeed, I believe the trend is in quite the reverse direction of that to which the noble Lord points. For his further information, employment in services over the period to which I have referred increased by 230,000; the number of self-employed has also increased by a very substantial number, 380,000 over the same period; also there has been a substantial increase in part-time employment which noble Lords opposite seem to deplore so much.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that the whistling-in-the-dark figures which he has given this afternoon will mean nothing to the millions of out of work married men with young children and to the millions of out of work young people with young children? Will he not agree that we on this side of the House have sat here now for four years, listening to the Government opposite telling us that recovery and a massive reduction in unemployment will be taking place in a few months' time? When will this Government take seriously the problem of mass unemployment?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is of course the case that too many people are unemployed and that I deeply regret. However, the fact remains that 23,665,000 people are employed, which is 650,000 more than in the previous period in question.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is able to give the House any figures for jobs which are advertised at Jobcentres, that is job vacancies at Jobcentres, throughout the country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, yes, I can help my noble friend. There were 184,000 jobs available at Jobcentres in September, last month. We reckon that that is about one-third of the total number of jobs available.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I——
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, the noble Lord has had one turn! May I ask the Minister whether he can tell us how many young people who have graduated from our universities in the last two years are now unemployed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I have not that figure in front of me, but I dare say that many of them form a portion of the 650,000 new jobs to which I have already referred.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is it possible for the Minister to send those figures to me?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall certainly make inquiries into the point which the noble Lord raises and, if I have anything to add to what I have already said, I shall write to him.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to elaborate on his first answer to my question? I asked how it can be that there are more employed whilst unemployment is going up. Is not the answer that that includes the 870,000 hidden unemployed referred to in the Government's own labour force survey of 1984, and that they should be added to the total number of unemployed when the figures are published each month?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no. The answer to the noble Lord's earlier question, as to why the number of unemployed was not declining while the number of jobs was increasing, is that the size of the work force is increasing even faster than the number of jobs.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, is it not of some interest to the noble Lord that the number of jobs advertised by the Institute of Personnel Management for new personnel managers seems to be increasing rather quickly? Would he not conceive it as a possibility that usually they hire the personnel managers, then later hire the personnel? Would this be of some interest to him?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think I am entitled to take the same comfort from that observation as does the noble Viscount himself.

Youth Custody: Effectiveness
2.48 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have evidence that youth custody is a more effective form of sentence than borstal training, and if so in what respect.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, unlike sentences of borstal training, youth custody sentences are determinate, and the Government believe that this enables the courts more effectively to match the sentence to the circumstances of the individual case.

471
The regime is intended to make best use of the time in custody, and to give offenders positive opportunities that may assist them on release.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that answer. However, is it not a fact that in the absence of any firm evidence, and despite the assurance given by the former Home Secretary, Mr. Leon Brittan, echoed in your Lordships' House, the imposition of youth custody sentences was intended to be used very sparingly? Is the noble Lord aware that magistrates' courts have nevertheless made far greater use of youth custody than they ever did of borstal training, especially when sentencing juveniles aged 15 to 16—an increase of some 40 per cent. between the last year of availability of borstal and 1984? Given the fact that those boys coming out of borstal in that last year re-offended within two years to the extent of more than 80 per cent., would the noble Minister not agree that the heavy resort to youth custody by the magistrates' courts is both premature, unwise and not as expected by your Lordships when we debated the Bill?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, there are many reasons why the numbers of people sentenced to youth custody centres have risen as the noble Lord suggests; but the fact is that a great many of them have had nearly every conceivable form of non-custodial sentence imposed before. It is my belief (and I have certainly been encouraged by what I have seen in youth custody centres up and down the country) that the sort of regime which is offered by them is one which is only good for those who are there. In regard to reconviction rates, we have not got information yet because the statistics go back some time; but of course we keep it all under review.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the removal of the borstal disciplines leaves a gap in the sentencing structure between making community service orders and the long-term youth custody sentence? Can he say in what respect medium youth custody is effective as a form of sentence in the interests of the reform and the rehabilitation of the young offender?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think the answer to my noble friend lies in the fact that there is a general growing acceptance that determinate sentences make for a franker dealing between staff and inmates. I cannot share my noble friend's view that there is a gap in the sentencing. Of course detention centres for juveniles exist but I believe that the regimes that are offered by youth custody centres are in the interests of those who are in them.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us a little more about what happens under a sentence of youth custody? Am I right in thinking that juveniles under 17 are held in prison for 10 days and then sent to a youth custody centre but that juveniles over 17, owing to the overcrowding of youth custody centres, may easily spend all their
472
sentence in a men's prison or a women's prison? Am I correct in these views? If not, I shall be very interested to hear the truth.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, certainly there are those who are going to youth custody centres who are assessed in local prisons. This may be the point the noble Lord is driving at. In regard to juveniles generally, they can be held in adult prisons only for temporary purposes such as allocation or where the net sentence is less than 21 days. On the latest information available, there are but 52 juveniles in adult prisons.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, are they under 17 or over 17? They are two different cases.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think it is over 17, but if I am wrong I shall let the noble Lord know.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, with the increase in the numbers of young people of the age of 15 and 16 going into youth custody, there has been an increase in bullying between inmates; and whether it would not be advisable for the Home Office to look to separating the younger inmates from the older inmates in juvenile establishments, as is the case in detention centres?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that we monitor very closely all developments in youth custody sentences over a wide range of matters, and bullying is certainly one of them. But we do not have any evidence to suggest that the position is significantly different now compared with the borstal system. I certainly share the concern of the noble Baroness about bullying. It is something that we keep our eyes on very closely.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, in the light of my first supplementary question and the noble Lord's reply, does he not agree that it really is very important that magistrates' courts should apply all the strict criteria laid down in Sections 1 to 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982? Will he ask his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to consider the need to remind magistrates' courts to that effect?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, of course my right honourable friend the Home Secretary keeps a close eye on all these related issues. As the noble Lord will understand, he cannot necessarily interfere in the way the judiciary deals with this. But I can assure the noble Lord that there is not quite the dissatisfaction generally which he seems to feel over the sentencing of youths.

Local Government Rates: Reform Proposals
2.56 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have decided to propose and carry out a fundamental reform of the system of local government rates.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, we hope to publish proposals in a consultative document at about the turn of the year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. During the period of consultation will the Government give high priority, first, to achieving a new system which will be regarded by the public as a fairer way of raising local taxation; and, secondly, to improving the position of industry and commerce which at present bear considerable burdens in rates payments and have little say in how the revenue is used?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is the perceived unfairness of the present system and the way it bears on industry and commerce that have led us to make this review. We shall certainly bear these in mind not only during the consultation but in preparing the paper.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, given the Government's quite clear pledge to abolish domestic rates, can the noble Lord say why the Government are lurching from uncertainty to indecision from month to month and from Green Paper to Green Paper? Can he say clearly whether the Government are going to adhere to that pledge and abolish domestic rates; or are they going to have a residence tax or a poll tax; or are they going to charge the poorer section of the community 20 per cent. of the rates? Is that their plan? Are we going to get a clear statement from the Government this time or are they going to go on messing around with a subject which is of close interest to all people in this community?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord were speaking from this Dispatch Box he would see that it was not possible to plump instantly for one solution without creating uproar. We are not lurching from uncertainty to indecision. We are proceeding carefully towards what I hope will be a solution satisfactory to all; and that can only be achieved by a process of consultation which will be continued in the paper of which I have spoken.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, since we have already had a consultation paper from this Government—and that was followed by a White Paper and then by a decision that there was nothing basically wrong with the rating system—is the noble Lord aware that a Scottish Office Minister (I think it was Lord Ancram) has said that promises are not enough? But the Government still have taken no definite action on getting the reform for which everyone in Scotland is anxious. When is it going to take place?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have already said that the consultation paper will be issued at about the turn of the year. The difference between this round and the earlier rounds is that in the earlier rounds we were considering rates on their own. We are now considering them in the context of a reform of the whole of local government finance.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, will my noble friend encourage his right honourable friends to pursue their endeavours to find an answer to this problem and not to be deterred by the fact that whatever they eventually produce will be opposed hook, line and sinker by the Benches opposite?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I always enter into these things with wide-eyed and optimistic innocence. It is possible that there will be some things in the consultation paper that they may be able to approve.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, since the anomalies in the rating system are much more apparent in Scotland—and this will be confirmed by the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—would the Minister care to comment on the prospect of separate legislation for Scotland which could avoid some of these anomalies, rather than await a United Kingdom solution?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there will need to be consultation for the whole of Great Britain and I do not think there is any question of one part being required to wait for another.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland has already made it very clear that he is so impatient with his own Government that he is very likely to be producing his own legislation and that, as he said just last week, he may very well go it alone? Can we perhaps have some nice competition between the two sides or parts of the United Kingdom that are rating authorities to see who can come up first with the better solution?
Lord Elton: My Lords, there is enthusiasm throughout the Government for improving all aspects of government. The pace will depend of course upon the difficulty and upon any achievable measure of consensus.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Minister has referred on a number of occasions to consultation. Does he recall that when the House was discussing the Local Government Bill there was pressure from all quarters of the Chamber for a proper and full review of local government finance? Who is conducting the present review? Would it not be better to have a proper review of local government finance rather than one which is based on a party political view?
Lord Elton: My Lords, reviews of government are commonly conducted under the aegis of the Government, but that will not prevent the noble Lord and his friends making trenchant comments which will be taken into consideration.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that he is seeking a solution which is acceptable to all. Is he not aware that is equivalent to saying that he proposes to take no action, since solutions acceptable to all are not even available to God Almighty?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I described what we were seeking as our goal. I did not say how far towards it we would get.

British Telecom: Foreign Purchases
3.1 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: 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 if they will make a statement on the refusal of British Telecom to agree to their recommendations by OFTEL (the Government agency which regulates telecommunications) that purchases from foreign sources of telephone switches in the next three years should not exceed 20 per cent. of their requirements.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as the Government have frequently stated, the procurement practices of British Telecom are a matter for the commercial judgment of the company. The director general's advice-giving role apart, the director general's powers to intervene in BT's decisions stem from BT's licence responsibilities. In this instance, the director general's conclusion was that BT had acted within those responsibilities. However, he intends to keep BT's future buying policy for digital exchanges under careful review in the light of the competition legislation. The Government have been pleased to note and regard as significant the chairman of BT's confirmation of his company's continuing commitment to System X as the basis of investment in digital switching.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. May I quote to him the report of OFTEL in connection with this matter? They say:
"their duty is to promote research and development in the industry. The System Y"——
that is the order to Sweden——
"increased the difficulty of maintaining an independent United Kingdom switching technology."
The report goes on to say:
"It must be recognised that much of the main work to develop the next generation of Ericsson technology will inevitably be done in Sweden and not in the United Kingdom."
Has this not serious implications for job opportunities in the United Kingdom and for expanding our technology in this field?
Finally, is the Minister aware that partly as a result of this decision GEC have just declared 921 redundancies, many of them in Scotland in the Kirkcaldy area, and that this should be a matter of deep concern not only to OFTEL who have some responsibility, but to Her Majesty's Government?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have indeed read the director general's report and I commend your Lordships to read it. As I said in my original Answer, he did not find that BT had acted outside their responsibilities. As regards the loss of jobs at Plessey and GEC recently, we are of course sorry to hear about that and we accept that in part those may have been
476
due to lower-than-expected orders from BT for System X. But on the other hand the rundown of old product lines was already an important feature in both instances. We are of course hopeful that extra jobs will be created in this country by Thorn Ericsson as a result of the BT order.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that when we were debating the matter in this House and before OFTEL came into existence we specifically strengthened their terms of reference? We made them responsible for the wellbeing of the electronics industry and particularly for exports. Now that OFTEL have produced an admirable report and have suggested that BT should give more time and consideration to buying overseas, is it not seriously going to affect our opportunities of exporting and selling our equipment all over the world? How does any British salesman go abroad and try to sell British equipment when our own telecommunications organisation is buying from overseas?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the powers of OFTEL, the director general's duties are set out in the legislation agreed by your Lordships' House last year. It is of course open to the director general to suggest that his duties should be altered, but he has not done so.
Regarding the export of System X, the Government have lent considerable support to the efforts of GEC and Plessey to secure export orders for System X—for example, through the aid and trade provisions and other measures—to counter the support available to competitor companies. This support is available for both current and future export campaigns, as is the backing and encouragement of Ministers and our representatives overseas.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that during the passage of the Telecommunications Bill through this House we on this side and many noble Lords on the other side forecast exactly what would happen? Is he further aware that during the debates which took place on the Bill his noble friend Lord Cockfield and others gave repeated assurances that the position of British industries would not be prejudiced by the passing of the Bill? Will the noble Lord state whether or not he is prepared to back the creature of his own creation, OFTEL, in its recommendations? Will he give the appropriate directives, as he is entitled to do, to British Telecom?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are obviously very interested in what the Director General has had to say and we find the report most valuable. As regards what was said in this House during the passage of the Bill, I think the noble Lord will find that, as the director general has reported, British Telecom have not acted outside their responsibilities.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, is it not conceivable that the moral of this particular incident is that there is really no adequate substitute for proper competition once industries are privatised? Should we not draw from this the conclusion that perhaps the Transport Bill which is at present before your

477
Lordships' House might provide a very good model for the privatisation of British Gas when that matter comes before us next year?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I would not wish to anticipate the privatisation of British Gas; but my noble friend has no doubt seen OFTEL's decision, as reported in the newspapers this morning, regarding the interconnection of the Mercury network, and that is promoting competition.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, arising from the noble Lord's last answer, may I ask whether he will also add that as a result of the recommendation of OFTEL, in fact the charges to residential and small business users for calls will go up, and that is a result of exactly the factor he has mentioned?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we shall have to wait and see what happens over that matter. It is reported that BT have said charges will go up. We shall have to wait and see whether that actually happens.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that at this time when there is a substantial net import of manufactured goods into this country large-scale enterprise, whether in the public or the private sector, should bend all its endeavours to stimulate suppliers within Britain? What measures do the Government intend to take to secure that objective?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we naturally hope that large manufacturers will succeed in Britain, but that is a very different question from the one which is on the Order Paper.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, has my noble friend any examples where Western European countries have bought from overseas rather than from their own manufacturers, or is BT the only example?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not have the figures for other European countries as to whether or not they buy from overseas. However, I can assure my noble friend that we are continuing our efforts to press other European countries to follow our lead in liberalising their markets, thereby creating an equality of opportunity for commercial sales as well as benefits to the customers.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is it not a fact that every country except the United States supports its domestic telecommunications industry substantially and there is no reciprocity on exports provided by any other country? To that extent, Britain is opening up the market to foreign competition despite the investment of £350 million by the Post Office, GEC and Plessey in the development of this British system which is now being departed from.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I disagree that the system is being departed from. British Telecom have said on many occasions, including in the press notice which they issued concerning this report, that they regard System X as their main system in
478
modernising their network. They also regard their commitment as most important and it certainly remains their main supplier.

Jordanian/Palestinian Delegation
3.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, at the end of her visit to Jordan, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced in Aqaba on 20th September her agreement that my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary would receive in London a joint Jordanian/Palestinian delegation. Our objective in issuing this invitation was to assist the search for peace in the Middle East and to demonstrate in a practical way our support for King Hussein's courageous initiative of 11 th February in which he challenged the Palestinians to join him in a joint approach to peace negotiations with Israel. We intended to use the meeting to explain at a high level our strongly-held view that a peaceful settlement must be based on the fundamental and balanced principles of the right of Israel to exist in peace and security and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.
It was agreed that the delegation would be led by the Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Majali, and the Foreign Minister of Jordan, Mr. Masri. The names of the two Palestinian delegates, Mr. Milhem and Bishop Khoury, were put forward on the understanding that they personally supported a peaceful settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions and were opposed to terrorism and violence. We received unambiguous assurances that the two Palestinians would make this clear publicly during their stay in London.
Last week our ambassador at Amman negotiated with the Jordanian Prime Minister the text of a statement which it was agreed would be issued by the delegation after their talks with my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. This stated that:
"the members of the joint delegation reiterated their personal support for a peaceful settlement of the Arab/Israel dispute on the basis of the relevant United Nations resolutions, including Resolutions 242 and 338 of the Security Council. They stated that in accordance with these resolutions a settlement should recognise the rights of the Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination within the context of a Jordanian/Palestinian confederation, as well as the right to secure existence of all states in the area, including Israel, within its 1967 borders. They confirmed their opposition to all forms of terrorism and violence from whatever source".
The two Palestinians arrived in London on 12th October for a meeting with my right honourable and learned friend yesterday, 14th October. On the afternoon of 13th October, the two Palestinians said that they were not, after all, willing to associate themselves with this statement. We stressed to members of the delegation our fundamental requirement that they should confirm their personal commitment to a peaceful settlement which recognised Israel's right to exist within secure and recognised boundaries and their opposition to all

479
forms of terrorism and violence. One of the Palestinian members of the delegation was unwilling to accept a specific reference to Israel's right to exist. We concluded that in these circumstances the meeting with the joint delegation could not take place.
We have kept in the closest touch with King Hussein and his government who I know share our disappointment at this setback. My right honourable and learned friend had a useful talk with the Jordanian Deputy Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister yesterday. He reaffirmed our firm support for King Hussein's initiative, which offers the best prospect of further progress. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister will also have an opportunity to discuss all these issues with the Israeli Prime Minister, Mr. Peres, whom we look forward to welcoming here in the New Year.
The international community must be ready to encourage those who are working for a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. We have shown that we are ready to do so. There can be no lasting settlement until all others are ready to do the same. We have made plain our deep disappointment that the opportunity offered by our invitation to the joint delegation has been missed.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for responding so readily to our request for a Statement about this unhappy affair, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for making it this afternoon. We note that the arrangement for this meeting was made by the Prime Minister during her visit to Jordan last month and this was, as we thought, in the spirit of the 1980 Venice Declaration, which recognised that the PLO would have to be "associated"—that was the word used—with Middle East negotiations. There was a general expectation that it might provide that start of progress towards a solution based on King Hussein's peace plan. We recognise, of course, that recent tragic events—for example, the Israeli bombing of PLO headquarters at Tunis and the hijacking of the "Achille Lauro"—have increased the tensions considerably and made things more difficult. However, will the Minister agree with us that these events emphasise the need for positive forward action?
The Foreign Secretary yester described the matter as "a surprise and a setback", and we must all agree with that. At one fell swoop, the Government appear to have succeeded in offending everybody. It still appears that failure may have been due to lack of detailed preparation by the Government, notwithstanding what the Statement says. We are told that the PLO representatives refused to give certain assurances yesterday about the use of violence, which led to the Foreign Secretary calling off the talks. But was not their position clarified at the very start, and certainly well before the meeting was finally arranged and the date of the meeting and the time of the meeting fixed? Can the noble Baroness say who, in fact, gave the "unambiguous assurances" which are referred to in the Statement which she has just made?
480
Further, the Statement appears to be contradictory. It says that on the afternoon of 13th October the two Palestinians said that they would not sign the statement. Later the Statement says that one of them was unwilling to subscribe to Israel's right to exist. Furthermore, we are now told by the most reverend Primate's representative, Mr. Waite, that the Bishop of Jerusalem, one of the two representatives, renounced, and renounces, violence but that he could not subscribe to other assurances demanded from him. In the light of this, was there any amendment or change to the agreed wording of the statement to which the noble Baroness referred which prompted the two representatives to demur at the very last moment?
If so, if there was an amendment, whether large or small, what was it? Was the reference to Israel, for example, inserted later on after the agreement made by the Prime Minister? It is important to get this point absolutely clear. Further, did the Bishop of Jerusalem and Mr. Milhem go back on the terms of the precise statement agreed with the Jordanian Government and Her Majesty's Government, or was it Her Majesty's Government who insisted on a late change to which the two representatives could not subscribe?
Finally, can the noble Baroness say whether there was any consultation with the Government of the United States of America before the meeting, or with the Israel Government or indeed with any other government, including our partners in the European Community? The Foreign Secretary has said that the setback is not fatal. He has referred to further talks with Mr. Peres. Can he say whether there will be urgent consultations with anyone else, in addition to Mr. Peres; for example, with the signatories of the Venice Declaration?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, we too should like to thank the noble Baroness for repeating this important Statement——
Noble Lords: For making it.
Lord Gladwyn: For making this important Statement, I beg your Lordships' pardon. I thought that the House of Commons was back, and of course it is not. However, there are some things which remain rather obscure in this extraordinary and, I must say, highly regrettable affair. Is it a fact, for instance, that the general formula on the basis of which the PLO representatives had apparently agreed to participate in the talks, which was reproduced in the Statement made by the noble Baroness, was publicly repudiated only a few hours before the talks were supposed to take place by only one—as the noble Lord who has just spoken said—and not by both of the Palestinian representatives? Next, was it really agreed, when the PLO leaders were invited to take part in the talks by the Prime Minister, that this formula, on the basis of which they agreed to participate in the talks, should only be published immediately after the talks had ended? If so why? If agreed, in principle, why was not the formula published when the invitation was actually issued? After all, if it had been formally and publicly agreed by the Jordanians and the Palestinians then it could hardly have been repudiated later. Are we consequently obliged to assume that the talks were at

481
least in part abandoned because of pressure brought to bear on the Government by President Reagan and by the Israeli Government as the result of the "Achille Lauro" affair for which, of course, the PLO must bear some and perhaps all of the responsibility?
First, is it not evident—this is a point arising from the mishap generally—that the illegal hijacking of the PLO terrorists responsible for the outrage—however comprehensible—is seriously endangering the regime of President Mubarak on whose continued existence in power the whole Western system of defence in the Middle East undoubtedly depends? What therefore do the Government now propose to do in order to recreate a situation in which negotiations will still be possible, the latest attempt to accomplish this end having gone so very sadly wrong?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can agree with the first point that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, made when he said that the recent events in the Middle East emphasise the need again for us to try to see a way forward in these difficult circumstances. I cannot however accept the tenor of the subsequent questions that he put to me. I will go through those in detail and at the same time answer the points that have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn.
In fact the Government throughout this whole negotiation have behaved with prudence and with care. First, we made clear the terms on which the meeting could take place. Then we took the precaution of getting the statement expected of the Palestinians set out on paper well in advance of the meeting—we believe that this was the right thing to do—and to get agreement by the Palestinians on the statement which I have included in full in the Statement that I have made to your Lordships. The precise sequence of events was as the Statement makes clear, that the Palestinians came to London on Sunday and it was at that point that they felt that they could not accede to the conditions set out beforehand. One of the Palestinians could not accept the statement on Israel's right to live in peace and security within her own boundaries, and as a consequence of that my right honourable and learned friend thought that it was right to break off the consultations. May I make it absolutely clear that there is no truth at all—I make it unequivocally clear—in the suggestion that the negotiations were abandoned because of pressure by the United States Government, or indeed pressure by any other government. The reason why the talks did not take place is precisely as I have set out in the Statement to your Lordships' House.
The noble Lord asked whether or not the formula for the agreement which I have quoted in the Statement was repudiated just before the talks. It was in fact repudiated after the Palestinians came to London.
Lord Gladwyn: Why was it not agreed before?
Baroness Young: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be good enough just to listen to what I have to say, I will do my best to set out what the position is. I think this is a very serious and disappointing setback to a very brave endeavour to try to make progress in the Middle East. I have no wish to hide anything from your
482
Lordships because we believe that we have acted in a very responsible way in a difficult situation. We set out the conditions for the talks and it is disappointing that conditions which were previously agreed before the Palestinians came to London were not agreed on their arrival here. It is for that reason, and for no other, that the talks did not take place.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness be good enough to clarify the situation on one of the questions which I asked her? The Statement says that negotiations took place with the Jordanian Prime Minister about the text of the statement which in fact she read out. It also states that Her Majesty's Government received unambiguous assurances that the two Palestinians would make clear publicly that they accepted the statement. But, as I understand it, the two representatives were not involved with the drafting of the statement. From whom, therefore, did Her Majesty's Government receive unambiguous assurances that the two representatives had in fact subscribed to the statement and would be likely to do so when they came to London?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not answer that important question that the noble Lord asked earlier on. The negotiated assurances were made with the Jordanian Prime Minister and the statement was cleared with the Jordanian Prime Minister and with Bishop Khoury. But we understood from the Jordanian Prime Minister that Mr. Milhem would agree to the statement.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, however disappointed many of us are that the characteristically gallant efforts of King Hussein and of our own Prime Minister to achieve progress in this ghastly Middle-Eastern situation have failed, most opinion in this country will be clear that the British Foreign Secretary could not sit down to discussions with people who are not prepared to repudiate violence and terrorism?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the point that he has made. It is a very important point. The reason why the talks did not take place was because one of the Palestinians did not accept Israel's right to exist in security within her own borders. I am very glad that my noble friend has recognised the courage of both the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in trying in a difficult situation to assist the peace process.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I——
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, may I——
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I yield to the right reverend Prelate.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester: My Lords, may I too thank the noble Baroness for her Statement on this matter? In view of the unusual circumstances in which an Anglican bishop was a representative of the PLO, perhaps I may make a short comment and put a

483
question. I recognise to the full the diplomatic delicacies of this situation, but Bishop Khoury is an Anglican bishop and it would bring great comfort and help to his many fellow Christians in the Anglican communion if it were possible to confirm that he has at all times and consistently renounced violence in this matter.
It is also reported in the press today that Bishop Khoury made a visit yesterday to Lambeth Palace. Perhaps I may be permitted to make it clear that it is entirely consistent and conventional, when Anglican bishops visit this country, for them to visit privately the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is in that context, I am sure, that Bishop Khoury's visit should be viewed.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to the two points raised by the right reverend Prelate, Bishop Khoury had denied allegations of complicity in terrorism. It is worth recording that he had never been prosecuted by the Israeli authorities for terrorism.
Lord Paget of Northampton: Because he ran, my Lords.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I recognise that in this situation, Bishop Khoury has himself acted with courage.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, leaving aside the gravity of a missed opportunity, because the difficulties in the Middle East are such that any missed opportunity is an extremely grave matter, the noble Baroness has just said that she has no wish to hide anything from the House. I believe it is true that when a government undertakes an enterprise of this kind in the full glare of publicity they must expect to end the enterprise also in the full glare of publicity.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness one or two very specific questions, following upon those asked already by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Can the noble Baroness confirm—and I believe this was clear from her last answer—that the assurances received from Amman that the Palestinian members of the delegation did accept the long form of words were received by the Prime Minister of Jordan and not direct by the Palestinians who were intended to be on the delegation?
Secondly, to whom did the Palestinian members of the delegation express on the afternoon of the 13th October their unwillingness after all, in closed quotes, to go along with the proposed wording? Thirdly, if those words were not acceptable to the two men, what words would have been acceptable to them? Can the noble Baroness spell out, syllable by syllable, the words objected to by both of the men, if possible? We know that there was a difference of opinion between the Anglican bishop and the Moslem politician. Can the noble Baroness say also what words would have been acceptable instead? Only then can Parliament and the public judge where the fault—for there has been a fault—lies.
Baroness Young: My Lords, in answer to the first supplementary question by the noble Lord, Lord
484
Kennet, I can only repeat what I have already said to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—that the assurances were negotiated with the Jordanian Prime Minister. In answer to the noble Lord's second supplementary as to whom the Palestinian delegation members' unwillingness to embark on the talks was expressed, it was to officials of the Foreign Office.
As to what wording would have been acceptable, the importance of the words was that they underscored the essential preconditions for any kind of discussion on this matter. We were not prepared to negotiate forms of words which did not meet those two requirements. As I have said, one member of the PLO delegation was prepared to accept the proposed form of words but one was not.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend and my right honourable friend on their very courageous initiative, even if it was something of a gamble. It is surely now clear beyond any peradventure that unless there is justice done to the displaced Palestinians in the Middle East, the Middle East problem will either not go away, at best, or at worst will lead us all into war.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister took a gamble of great courage. She was trying her level best to make the Palestinians help themselves. May I please have an undertaking from my noble friend that this process will continue? While we are on the subject of terrorism, is it perfectly acceptable not to speak to a bishop who may or may not have smuggled the odd rifle across the border in Jerusalem but totally acceptable to talk to a Prime Minister of Israel who orders the bombing of a neutral capital and who sets up terrorist militias in the south of Lebanon?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for saying that this was a courageous initiative. The Government believe that it was and regret very much the outcome. The outcome is a setback but the Government will persevere in their search for a way to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. I will not add anything to my noble friend's last remark. We must concentrate on the best and most constructive way to go forward.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, it is clear from what the noble Baroness has told the House that these vital assurances were given by the Palestinians, not to the British Government directly but to the Jordanians. In view of the importance of the whole issue, and since the assurances were absolutely vital to holding the conversations at all, was it not imprudent to be content with anything less than a direct face-to-face commitment by the Palestinians before they came here?
Baroness Young: My Lords, we believe that the agreements reached and the assurances given by people acting responsibly, who also had an interest in pursuing the process of peace and who also wished for a successful outcome, were satisfactory. It is a matter of regret that that was not the case. I believe that the Jordanian Government share our disappointment at that outcome.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, can the noble Baroness the Minister tell the House whether commitments were made and clearly understood at the beginning of these talks? If so, in what way did they differ from the talks which have taken place at other times and which ended in disagreement?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I believe that there may be a misunderstanding of the position by the noble Lord, Lord Bottomley. Before the talks were to begin at all, the British Government had negotiated the form of words in writing, which we understood all members of the delegation were prepared to agree to and which were to be issued as a statement at the conclusion of the talks. It was only after the delegation had arrived in London that it was made plain that the delegation was not prepared to support the very essential assurances.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, perhaps I may first express my sympathy for the Foreign Office for having been placed in this ridiculous position, apparently without consultation by the Prime Minister. Was it not in any case absurd to accept as one of the emissaries of peace the bishop of Jerusalem, who has been charged with gun-running to the assassins, who has only evaded trial by successfully absconding, and who is still absconding from his diocese?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot accept for one moment that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been put in a ridiculous position.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, all the press tell us that is so.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government and my right honourable and learned friend have pursued a courageous initiative with care and prudence. It is a matter of regret that the initiative has ended as it has. Nor can I accept the noble Lord's statement concerning Bishop Khoury. I have already said in answer to a point made by the right reverend Prelate that Bishop Khoury denied allegations of complicity in terrorism at the time, and he has done so again recently.
Lord Paget of Northampton: Then why does he not face a trial, my Lords?
Baroness Young: My Lords, he has never been prosecuted by the Israeli authorities, although it is true they are now claiming that he admitted awareness of transporting for others a package which contained explosive. This was apparently later used in a bombing attack. What is important now, I think, is to concentrate on the present. The past record is important, but it does seem that the present commitment is even more vital.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I hesitate to prolong the exchange much further and certainly have no wish to embarrass the Government in what is an extremely complicated situation. But I wonder if I may ask the noble Baroness to clarify something which has puzzled me throughout the whole of this unfortunate affair.
486
Were the assurances demanded from these two representatives meant to be assurances on their own personal behalf, or on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organisation? If on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organisation, was this not an extremely optimistic line to take, in that the PLO is clearly and fully committed to violence and to the destruction of Israel? On the other hand, if the assurances were given on behalf of these two men personally and did not in any way commit the Palestine Liberation Organisation, what on earth was the point of having negotiations with them?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, is that the assurances were to be given on behalf of the members of the delegation. This was made quite clear, and it was part of an initiative which was proposed by King Hussein to advance the course of peace in the Middle East. The two members of the PLO could not be described as representatives of the PLO. I think it is very important to recognise that the PLO in a sense is a set of initials which embraces a wide cross-section of opinion apparently enjoying the support of most Palestinians in the occupied territories. I think it is also important to recognise that not all Palestinians support terrorism and the armed struggle.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, while I join with other noble Lords in regretting the unfortunate breakdown of the talks, and am in no way seeking to join with those trying to find out which side has the most terrorists in the Middle East, is it not clear that the line Her Majesty's Government have declared to the world is that Britain insists on the right of Israel to exist at peace within her own boundaries?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad to confirm to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, that that is indeed one of the conditions that have been set by Her Majesty's Government in this matter. The right of Israel to exist in security within her own boundaries, and the rights of the Palestinians to self-determination, are of course part of Security Council Resolution 242.
Lord Caccia: My Lords, one further question, if I may, to follow up one put by my noble friend Lord Chalfont. As I had understood it, this peace process was started in February by the initiative of King Hussein in which we were given to understand that Arafat had accepted and concurred in the general move forward. Therefore, when considering which elements in the Palestine Liberation Organisation might be covered by the two representatives, or quasi representatives, was not the important point for Her Majesty's Government that they did apparently represent the views of Arafat, who was, in the initial stages, part of the initiative of King Hussein in February?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, I entirely see the point which the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, is making. As the Statement makes clear, this initiative does arise out of the initiative of King Hussein. It was thought and hoped that having a delegation so composed

487
would enable the peace process to be advanced. It was hoped that, given the assurances that were necessary, it would be possible for a constructive meeting to take place.

Oil and Pipelines Bill
3.45 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [General functions of Agency.]
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 9, at end insert ("provided that in carrying out activities on behalf of the Crown in relation to petroleum the Agency shall be permitted to purchase, sell or exchange such oil as it considers necessary for the better performance of its duties with respect to the handling of royalty oil.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. This amendment is similar to one which we moved at the Committee stage, Amendment No. 17, but, although similar, it is nevertheless different in a very important sense. If the noble Lord will recall, Amendment No. 17 mentioned the words "enhancing the performance of its duties", and because we thought that perhaps the word "enhancing" might offend the susceptibilities of the noble Lord as to the importance or otherwise of the new agency, we have decided that we should alter the word "enhancing" so that the amendment now reads:
"as it considers necessary for the better performance of its duties".
I hope the noble Lord will agree that that perhaps constitutes a wording which will be more acceptable to him.
On behalf of the Government, the noble Lord rejected our original amendment at Committee stage for two reasons. First of all he said:
"Term arrangements for purchase of oil inevitably would involve the public sector in price formation".
He also said:
"the agency would face the possibility of unlimited exposure to loss by trading on its own account".—[Official Report 31/7/85; col. 302.]
The noble Lord will be aware that we do not agree with his reading of the situation were this amendment passed. We believe—indeed, we know—that losses which were incurred by BNOC were incurred not as a result of the sort of trading we are talking about here, the sort of trading which will enable the agency better to perform its duties by making up from royalty oil viable cargoes by the purchase of oil on the spot market or elsewhere. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that BNOC incurred the losses because it was the then policy of the Government for BNOC to intervene on the oil markets of the world; in fact, it suited the Government's own particular desire and policies at that time to interfere with, in one way or another, the world oil price. So in actual fact we are talking about something quite different in this amendment. We are seeking to enable the agency to make arrangements and make purchases which will enable it better to carry out its functions. I should have thought that the Minister would welcome such an amendment because
488
I feel quite sure that he wants the agency to be a success and, in fact, to be commercially and economically viable. Therefore, I hope that he will consider the amendment very seriously indeed.
In Committee the noble Lord admitted that a very small amount of spot trading might be helpful in support of the agency's handling of royalty in kind. At column 302—and I shall quote what he said in full so that the debate and what I say make sense—he said:
"However, a very small amount of spot trading might be helpful in support of the agency's handling of royalty in kind. Let me give two examples. First, a cargo of royalty in kind, quite properly sold several weeks in advance in accordance with oil industry practice, might fail to accrue due to unforeseen technical difficulty. Then it would be helpful for the agency to buy a cargo from the market on its own account to fulfil the commitment it had entered into to deliver one. Alternatively, it might be useful for the agency to be able to purchase a part cargo of oil which could be aggregated with a part cargo of royalty in kind, so that a whole cargo could be lifted before the end of a royalty chargeable period."—[Official Report, 31/7/85; col. 302.]
In fact, that statement in itself makes the case for this amendment. The noble Lord has already agreed that it would be right and proper for the agency to do what we are suggesting it should be allowed to do but which, under the Bill, it will not be permitted to do without the consent of the Secretary of State.
In another debate in Committee the noble Lord also said that it would be wrong for the Government to interfere in a detailed way. In Column 299, he said:
"The Government have neither the desire nor the expertise to perform this function and it makes no sense, therefore, to subject the agency to specific control and approval in this area."—[Official Report, 31/7/85; col. 299.]
Yet, in relation to this particular function of the agency, the Government apparently want to subject the agency to detailed control which is neither necessary nor desirable. If the agency is known to be competent and if it is anticipated that the agency will have to deal in spot trading to a limited extent, as the noble Lord acknowledged in Committee, why should it be circumscribed by the dictate of the Secretary of State? The noble Lord argued that it is because of the impact on oil price formation and the potential exposure to loss, as I have already mentioned, but those would not be good reasons unless the amounts envisaged as necessary for the better performance of the agency's duties with respect to the handling of royalty oil were substantial.
I think I must say that if the amounts of oil acquired by spot trading are substantial then the Minister's reasons for not allowing the amendment may very well have some relevance; but this means that the agency will often be seeking the approval of the Secretary of State to spot trade if it is to alleviate the problem of operating what would evidently otherwise be a grossly inefficient system of transporting royalty oil. If the amounts of oil acquired by spot trading are not substantial, the Minister's reasons are not relevant and the agency should be permitted to spot trade on the ground that it will be necessary to a limited extent only since the system of handling royalty oil will be, on the whole, efficient.
The Minister cannot have it both ways, can he? He cannot be schizophrenic about this. Therefore, I hope that he has changed his mind and that he has recovered his health so that he will be able to tell me

489
when he replies in a moment that he is able to consider and, I hope, accept the amendment. I have gone out of my way to meet him on this. I think he will agree that 1 went out of my way in Committee to try to help him with this Bill and to help him make the Bill more relevant and sensible. Therefore, I hope he will consider what I have said and accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I rise to speak in place of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, who spoke during the Committee stage of the Bill. I support the amendment now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart. He has made a very telling point that in the establishment of this agency it should be provided with the capability of operating effectively.
I was very struck with the quotations which the noble Lord made from the Committee stage, wherein the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, referred to circumstances in which a very small amount of spot trading might be necessary in order to build up or replace cargoes of royalty oil which were insufficient. Having had some experience of working in a public enterprise it would seem to me that it would be almost intolerable to have to go through the process of ministerial consent for such a very small operation. As far as I can see, and reading the Bill as it now stands, that would be covered by Clause 2(1)(d), which in turn is subject to the consent of the Secretary of State.
My understanding of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, and my reason for supporting it very strongly is that the intention is to enable the agency to operate effectively and to enable the agency not to have to go through the process of obtaining the approval of the Secretary of State on every single small occasion when it must make a commercial decision. If that were to be necessary, the whole purpose of having an agency seems to disappear. Why is this not done simply by a branch of the Ministry? That would at least eliminate this process of permanent consultation and enable things to be done precisely as the Secretary of State wishes. Therefore, I strongly support the very moderate proposal for the greater efficiency of the agency put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
4 p.m.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, explained his intentions in Committee, and I think there is little between us on this matter. As he then explained—and, indeed, he has given us further reasons today for his beliefs—his concern is that the agency should not be prevented from doing an effective job of marketing royalty oil by a strait-jacket of bureaucratic controls. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, also suggested. We welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to this debate, and we are sorry that his noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran is not able to be with us. He made an important contribution during the Committee stage. In particular, they take the view that the agency should be able to buy part cargoes to ensure that full cargoes can be lifted at the end of chargeable periods.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, also made clear that he did not intend by his amendment to enable the
490
agency to buy and sell oil freely. I share his concern and his intention in so far as purchasing additional oil may enhance the agency's performance of its functions in disposing of royalty oil. I believe that both objectives can be met perfectly adequately within the existing framework of the Bill. The question is, who is to set the framework for any such supplementary trading?
In the Government's view that must he the responsibility of the Secretary of State since he is the principal accountable to Parliament. He is accountable for the proceeds of royalty sales and, as the Bill clearly states, the agency is his agent. The agency will have to exercise its commercial acumen in making the best of any individual deals which may be permitted within the framework of consents given under Clause 2(2), but that framework must be set by the Secretary of State, who doubtless will consult the agency closely about it.
There really is little more that I can say which has not been said during our discussion on the similar amendment at Committee stage. I do not think that there is a great issue involved in this, and indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said rather confirms that fact. As I indicated earlier, it is purely a matter of deciding who is to set the framework for any supplementary trading, and in the view of the Government it has to be the Secretary of State who is accountable to Parliament. For those reasons I am afraid that, though I have some sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has said, I must ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, would the Minister clarify whether we are discussing the Minister setting the framework for these commercial transactions, or whether we are talking about the Minister approving individual commercial transactions? That seems to me to be the point at issue.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, as I see it, the question which we are discussing is what 1 have already spelled out. The question is, who is to set the framework for any such supplementary trading, and, in the view of the Government, that must be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, because he is the person who is accountable to Parliament. However sympathetic one might be to what the noble Lord suggests, I do not see that one can reasonably get round that point. This must be the responsibility of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State is the person who is accountable to Parliament.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I find what the noble Lord has said very interesting. Is he really telling us that once this Bill is passed the Secretary of State will set down the framework in which the agency operates in respect of buying this type of oil to make up cargoes? Is he saying that the Secretary of State will set the framework once and for all and thereafter the agency will be free, on a day to day, month to month and year by year basis, to operate as it thinks fits? Is that what the noble Lord is telling us?
Lord Gray of Contin: No, my Lords. I think perhaps it would help the noble Lord if I just reiterate what I said a little earlier, which is that the agency will have to exercise its commercial acumen in making the best

491
of any individual deals which may be permitted within the framework of consents given under Clause 2(2). A consent can be given in terms which would not necessitate the constant supervision, if I may put it that way, of the Secretary of State, but the Secretary of State will have an overall supervision. Obviously, he will not be involved in every individual case, but he will have an overall supervision, and he will rely on the agency—which, after all, is his agent—to use its commercial acumen. I hope I have clarified that point for the noble Lord.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I do not know that the noble Lord has clarified it. In fact what he has done is to confirm that the best way to act would be by accepting the amendment which is before the House. That, in fact, would achieve in a very easy and understandable way the objectives which apparently he seeks to achieve. But as I understand it, as the Bill reads at the present time, there will always be the power of the Secretary of State—indeed, the necessity for the Secretary of State—to have his finger in every relevant pie, and I am sure that this is not what the House wants. Apparently it is not what the noble Lord intends, but as the Bill stands at the present time that is what will happen. We are offering a way out to the noble Lord, to do what apparently he wants to do, what I want to do, what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, wants to do, and what the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, wants to do. Why on earth will he not accept the amendment?
Lord Ezra: My Lords, perhaps I may add to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has made. It seems to me that if the amendment were accepted, we should still be leaving in and not wishing in any way to emend the overall powers reserved to the Minister under subsection (2). We are simply saying that we consider that the disposal of royalty oil requires some degree of flexibility in the operations of the agency. This can be done in one of two ways. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, that it can best be done by the acceptance of his amendment, but if the noble Lord the Minister feels that he cannot accept the amendment, then could he state quite categorically, so that it can go into the record of this debate, that in fact that is precisely what the Secretary of State intends to do in practice?
Lord Gray of Contin: No, my Lords. I have tried to explain this several times, and I am not terribly convinced that noble Lords opposite really want to understand my explanation. They are hooked on this amendment, which they are trying to persuade me to accept, but I must make it absolutely clear to them that the Government believe that what they seek to do can be met within the existing framework of the Bill and that their amendment is unnecessary.
I shall repeat the two salient points. The question is, who is to set the framework for any such supplementary trading? The Government take the view, and there has been no disagreement on that, that it must be the responsibility of the Secretary of State. There is also no argument over the fact that the Secretary of State is the principal accountable to Parliament for the proceeds of royalty sales. These two points are established.
492
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked me whether I could guarantee that the Secretary of State would not be involved in every single transaction. What I said to him, and I say it again, is that the agency will have to exercise its own commercial acumen in making the best of any individual deals which may be permitted within the framework of consents given under Clause 2(2), and it is the Secretary of State who gives those consents. So in fact the Secretary of State will not be involved in every individual transaction, but he will have overall responsibility for giving the consents. I do not think that I can make the position clearer than that. I do not believe that the amendment of the noble Lord would in any way improve the legislation. I believe that we can take care of the concerns of the noble Lord within the framework of the Bill, and for that reason I am not on this occasion able to accept the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this really has been quite an intriguing little debate. I must confess that earlier on I thought it was going to be a dialogue between the Minister and myself, and I am most grateful to the other noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. It really has been quite intriguing and I think we shall have to read very carefully what the Minister has said.
As I understand it, he has just said that the Secretary of State must exercise his commercial judgment. I really am confused now. I thought that the agency had been set up to exercise commercial judgment on behalf of the Government. Now we have the Secretary of State exercising commercial judgment and the agency apparently exercising its commercial judgment as well. Frankly, that is a recipe for absolute chaos in the operation of the Government's oil policy. However, they will have to pay for that and other mistakes they have made over the past six years at the next general election. In those circumstances, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) to enter into agreements on behalf of the Crown and at the request of the Secretary of State to secure the supply of petroleum and petroleum products; and")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again at Committee stage we had a significant debate on this matter which involves the security of our oil supplies. There was a Division and the Committee rejected the detailed amendment which we put forward. In the light of that it would have been quite wrong of me to bring forward a further detailed amendment. Nevertheless, we remain unhappy about the present informal arrangements with which the Government are apparently content in the event of an oil crisis.
We know that in the event of an oil crisis it will take the Government some six months to activate proper arrangements to deal with it. Again as I noted at Committee stage, by that time the crisis will have come and, hopefully and almost inevitably, will have gone, so the arrangements to which the Government are adhering at the present time are completely irrelevant to the security of supply.
The Government are relying on the good will and, if one likes, the patriotism of individual private oil companies. I believe that they are wrong to do so not only in the national interest but also because it is unfair to those companies. It is not their business to look after the national interest; that is the business of the Government.
The business of an oil company is not to look for and make preparations for any crisis which may arise. Its job is to operate commercially for the good of itself, its customers, its work-force and its shareholders. To superimpose upon the oil companies the burden of protecting this country in an oil crisis is completely unfair and utterly irrelevant to what is needed. We believe that it is the Government's paramount duty to protect our oil supplies in the event of a crisis. Any Government who do not do so are not only failing in their duty but will come to a bad end when the results of their neglect are seen by the electorate.
As I have said, this amendment is a simplified version of Amendment No. 30 which we put down at the Committee stage. The noble Lord criticised the specific requirements in the original amendment, so this amendment which is drawn up in general terms has been tabled in its stead. Its purpose is to lay a burden of responsibility on the agency in conjunction with the department to ensure that there is adequate and formal security of supply in the event of a crisis.
4.15 p.m.
The scaling down of the functions of BNOC to the residual functions of the agency has the consequence of a concommitant scaling down of the amount of participation oil contracted by the agency compared to BNOC. In the event of a crisis, as I have already said, there will be an interim period of about six months before the re-activation of participation agreements. During that period security of supply will be dependent upon informal agreements about which the Government will say little for fear of breaching commercial confidence.
Again I argued at Committee stage that that was not good enough. It simply is not good enough merely to have a letter or perhaps a word over a telephone from an oil company or companies as to what they would do in the event of a crisis. That is not the way that the Government should operate. Anyway, they should not use the excuse of commercial confidence in order not to come clean and tell us what sort of arrangements they are making. That is unfair to Parliament, to the companies and to the people of this nation.
At Committee stage the noble Lord argued that our original amendment was unsatisfactory on the ground that producers should not be forced by statute to enter into security of supply agreements. There could be argument about that when the national interest is at stake. He said:
"What we require is a flexible understanding with United Kingdom refiners to the effect that, whatever happens, they will do their best within the law to continue supplying their customers in this country".
In other words, informal voluntary arrangements are preferable for the sake of flexibility. He concluded:
"What is required here is a loose-fitting garment and not a straitjacket".—[Official Report, 31/7/85; col. 320–321.]
Those are nice-sounding words. But the trouble with a loose-fitting jacket, dress or other garment is that people are able to slip out of it very quickly indeed. Although one would not wish to impose a straitjacket on anybody, in the matter of the security of our oil supply we want people to be contained and constrained to a certain degree for the benefit of the nation.
I believe that the Government and the Opposition agree that security of supply is of pre-eminent importance. I do not think that is in dispute. But the difference between us is the Opposition's concern that the Government are willing to entrust the welfare of the country at a time of economic crisis to the strength of informal assurances about which we have little or no information.
The amendment requires the agency in co-operation with the department to give some shape to these amorphous, informal arrangements, since formality does not inhibit flexibility. It simply affords more definite security; and it is more definite security that the Opposition are after. That is why we move the amendment and hope that it will be supported. I beg to move.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in supporting this amendment, I believe that the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart, has raised a very important issue which has of course been discussed at earlier stages. The issue is this important one of security. We have, in the past 12 years or so, been through two major oil crises, and it is conceivable that at any time in the future we could go through further crises. It is very proper, in a debate of this kind on the Bill, for us on these Benches to ask the noble Lord the Minister to indicate to us more precisely than has been done so far how the Government would propose dealing with such a crisis.
Here, an agency is being set up which could be entrusted with this task subject to the decision of the Secretary of State at the time. The proposed amendment would give the Secretary of State that authority and that capability. If he did not seek to use that authority in the particular circumstances, it would be absolutely up to him not to use it. But it would seem to be missing an opportunity to add to the armoury at the disposal of this country to deal with some future oil crisis not to be in a position to make use of the agency and its existence and to add this to the other purposes for which it operates.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I believe that I can be reasonably brief on this point because the underlying issues were fully discussed during the Committee stage of the Bill. This amendment would enable Government to use the agency as a vehicle for agreements of some kind to ensure security of supply of oil products. Quite simply, I have to say that the Government are as always most grateful for the offer of additional weapons for their armoury. But, quite frankly, I see no need of, or use for, this one.
Security of supply to consumers is a matter of oil products, not crude oil. The supply of these products to consumers is in the hands of many private sector companies, both small and large, and only they are in a position to ensure security of these supplies. In so far as individual refiners may find difficulty in obtaining

495
crude supplies in a crisis, the participation agreements and the oil directly available to Government—I mean royalty oil—may have roles to play. But the primary responsibility for supplying products to customers lies with the industry, and the Government's efforts to ensure that security of supply is maintained must focus on those involved—that is, the industry.
The agency can play no useful role in this, as it has no involvement in marketing products. It would be quite impractical and counter-productive to propose that, in times of shortage, the agency should suddenly take over that involvement from the private industry. It was certainly not a role ever thought appropriate to BNOC. It is for Government, and not an agent of Government, to ensure that the supplying companies recognise their responsibilities to their British customers, and of course for those customers themselves.
The agency may be able to contribute to the refiners' crude supplies through the participation agreements and the marketing of royalty oil. But to put the onus for supplying petroleum and petroleum products on the agency will remove the responsibility for supply from where it properly belongs: the oil companies marketing in this country and their customers. For these reasons, I am afraid that I cannot accept the amendment. I trust that the noble Lord may be prepared to withdraw it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, so far as I am concerned that reply is completely unsatisfactory. There is a deep division between the noble Lord and myself on this matter. It is quite clear that he is prepared to rely entirely on the commercial operations of the oil companies to safeguard our oil supplies. We believe that the Government need an arm with which to ensure security of supplies. Because we believe that this is absolutely vital to the nation's economic survival even and to the interests of our people, I feel obliged to press this amendment to a Division.
4.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 117.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Attlee, E.

Ezra, L.

Aylestone, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Bacon, B.

Gallacher, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Galpern, L.

Blyton, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Grey, E.

Bottomley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Brockway, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Hooson, L.

Chitnis, L.

Hughes, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Collison, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

John-Mackie, L.

David, B. [Teller.]

Kagan, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Kearton, L.

Diamond, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Leatherland, L.

496

Listowel, E.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Stallard, L.

McNair, L.

Stedman, B.

Mellish, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Morton of Shuna, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Nicol, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Phillips, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

TordofF, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Underhill, L.

Roberthall, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Rochester, L.

Walston, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Whaddon, L.

Scanion, L.

White, B.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Willis, L.

Shackleton, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Shepherd, L.

Winstanley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Killeam, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kintore, E.

Auckland, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beloff, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mancroft, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Margadale, L.

Butterworth, L.

Marley, L.

Caithness, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Merrivale, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mersey, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Milverton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Morris, L.

ColvilleofCulross, V.

Mottistone, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Cowley, E.

Munster, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Daventry, V.

Norfolk, D.

Davidson, V.

Northesk, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Portland, D.

Dundonald, E.

Radnor, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Reay, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Renton, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Rodney, L.

Elton, L.

Rugby, L.

Faithfull, B.

St. Davids, V.

Fanshawe of Richmond, L.

Sandys, L.

Ferner, L.

Selkirk, E.

Fortescue, E.

Sharpies, B.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Somers, L.

Glanusk, L.

Stamp, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Sudeley, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Suffield, L.

Gridley, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Teviot, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Torrington, V.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Tranmire, L.

Harvington, L.

Trenchard, V.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hives, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vickers, B.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Westbury, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Whitelaw, V.

Inglewood, L.

Wynford, L.

Ironside, L.

Young, B.

Jessel, L.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) In the event of the Secretary of State refusing his consent under subsection (2) above, he shall as soon as possible after such a refusal make a statement to Parliament saying that his consent had been so withheld.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the course of the Committee stage of the Bill an amendment was debated requiring the Secretary of State to report to Parliament his reasons in the event of his refusing consent to the agent to buy, sell or otherwise deal in petroleum on its own account as permitted under Clause 2. The noble Lord objected to that amendment on the grounds that any disclosure of lack of consent for such trading would breach commercial confidence of the third party involved in the agency's proposals. He also objected to embarking upon commercial discussions in the full glare of publicity. The noble Lord noted that Governments did not like the negotiations being performed in the full glare of publicity, but said that he could quite understand that Oppositions like such discussions to be given the utmost publicity.
We believe, whether in Government or in Opposition, that the public—on whose behalf the Government is after all acting; the Government are the servants and not the masters of the people—should have the utmost information made available to them. It is not good enough to suggest that it is wrong to have discussions in public. The public are entitled to know. I think that it is also wrong and reprehensible to hide behind the cloak of a breach of commercial confidence. By informing Parliament that one has done something, one does not in fact breach commercial confidence. The Government make far too much use of this very convenient phrase. Of course commercial confidence is a relevant consideration—we all agree about that—but at times it seems all too convenient a way of blocking the view of those who wish to scrutinise the actions of the Government a little.
The amendment presently before the House concedes the point that commercial confidence is important but retains a firm grip on the principle that Parliament should be informed about the relationship between the agency and the Secretary of State. All I am asking is that Parliament should be kept informed of those occasions on which the Secretary of State does not agree to a request by the agency. Is that really too much to ask? We are not asking for any detailed consideration by Parliament of the reasons why the Government have refused their consent. All we are asking is that Parliament should be informed that the Secretary of State has refused consent. Surely that is only a small thing to ask; and it would be inconceivable for the noble Lord this afternoon to reject this amendment. If he rejects it, what he is in fact saying is that Parliament is not a deserving creature to be told what the Government are doing in any respect. Frankly, I think that that would show a contempt for
498
Parliament and the parliamentary process which I know the noble Lord does not feel. I know that he has the utmost respect for Parliament, its procedures and our system of Government. I would hope therefore that he could bring himself to say this afternoon. 'Yes, this is a reasonable amendment, Parliament is entitled to know that we have refused our consent, and I will therefore accept the amendment with great pleasure." I am sure that he will not say that. It is a great pity but nevertheless I urge him to do so.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in the debate we had a few minutes ago upon the first amendment it seemed that the Government were minded to lay down a framework under which the agency would operate. Presumably that framework for the purchases of oil outside the royalty arrangements would be such as would be agreed between the two parties. If there were cases where the Government withheld their consent in spite of that framework, it would seem to me not unreasonable that those probably quite exceptional cases should be divulged to Parliament. Indeed. in the case of the nationalised industries it was written into the statutes that, where the Ministers concerned overrode the views of the nationalised industries in particular respects, that should be made public. We are therefore used to that sort of legislation. It is difficult to see why, if the Secretary of State were to divulge his refusal in broad terms, any commercial problems should arise. Therefore, I urge the Government to accept this very modest amendment which would help us to understand more clearly at parliamentary level how the system will operate.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has a knack of suggesting to the House that I really mean a certain thing, when that is not really what I mean at all. Therefore, I shall try, if I possibly can, to explain precisely what I do mean in answering the noble Lord's proposal that we accept his amendment. I am sure that it will be a source of sadness to him to learn even at this early stage that I am unable to accept his amendment.
I do not think that I can gloss over the fundamental difference in approach between noble Lords opposite and the Government on the role of the public sector. In my view, the amendment really highlights that situation. In our view the commercial activities of the public sector should be limited only to those that cannot be carried out by the private sector. In the case of the Oil and Pipelines Agency, that approach is reinforced because oil trading is essentially a speculative activity. In the last 12 months we have learnt only too well how the commercial activites in the oil market of a nationalised industry can be misinterpreted as acts of Government and develop a potential for destabilising the oil market. Accordingly, the exceptional act which, it could be argued, ought to be reported to Parliament, is not the refusal of a consent but the granting of a consent to the agency to exercise participation options or to trade in oil. I do not, however, want to encourage any of your Lordship's to put down an amendment in the latter sense since the problems of confidentiality which I mentioned in Committee would, I am afraid, prohibit me from recommending its acceptance.

499
However, I am always anxious to help noble Lords, as far as I am able and here I can give some explanation of the intentions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy in the matter of granting consent. There are two different activities covered by Clause 2 for the carrying out of which the Secretary of State's consent would be required. The first of these is the exercise of options to take participation oil. That activity is related to security of supply. As I explained on Second Reading, consent to exercise these options will be given only if such exercise is justified by an existing or imminent threat to the security of the nation's oil supplies. It must be not for the agency, but for Government to judge whether that situation exists as both the information and the responsibility lie with Government. Doubtless, of course, Parliament will also take a keen interest in the matter and it is not improbable that any future Secretary of State would wish to give it some indication of any precautionary measures taken in such a situation, such as the exercise of participating options.
The second activity is trading in oil on the agency's own account. Again I explained on Second Reading that consent to that activity will be given only as necessary to maximise the proceeds from the sale of royalty oil taken in kind. In Committee I gave examples of when such trading might be necessary. I very much hope that we shall be able to frame any consent in such a way as to specify the kind of activity and the limits to trading which the agency may undertake and thus avoid the need for specific consents for individual transactions. This approach would enable the agency to make appropriate use of the judgment and skills of its staff and its officers, within an overall framework defined by my right honourable friend. This seems to us an appropriate separation of the responsibilities.
The Government have therefore already made quite clear to Parliament their intentions in regard to consents under this subsection should the Bill be enacted. I trust that noble Lords will accept that there is no need to require for the notifications on the refusal or granting of consent particularly since such notification could, as already mentioned, raise problems of commercial confidentiality and put the agency at a disadvantage in its dealings in the market.
4.45 p.m.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart,—although I know that he did not mean to do so—glossed over the question of commercial confidentiality rather too easily. Commercial confidentiality is something which must be respected very much indeed by Government. It is of extreme importance. The legal implications of not having regard to commercial confidentiality can be very serious. In my view it is vitally important that such undertakings as are given and such agreements as are made between Government and the private sector are considered (where both sides feel that this is necessary) as commercially confidential. I am sure that it was not the noble Lord's intention to dilute the implication of commercial confidentiality, but I reiterate that we put very high store on it.
500
I having made those comments on the amendment proposed by the noble Lord and having given my reasons for not being able to accept it, perhaps the noble Lord will consider withdrawing it.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the further information which he has given to us, I think that we shall find it most useful when we read it in Hansard and I thank him for giving it. However, I am rather surprised that the noble Lord should say that I glossed over the issue of commercial confidentiality. Indeed, I recognised it. I stated that the amendment which is at present before the House concedes the point that commercial confidence is important. What more can I do than that? I conceded the point that commercial confidentiality was an important issue and that we did not wish to undermine it. I also understand what the noble Lord said about undue publicity having an effect on markets, prices, movements and what have you.
However, let us just consider what the amendment actually says. It says:
"In the event of the Secretary of State refusing his consent under subsection (2) above, he shall as soon as possible after such a refusal make a statement to Parliament saying that his consent had been so withheld".
All of the cards are left in the Secretary of State's hands. He decides when is "as soon as possible". Therefore, in fact he may very well be telling Parliament after any danger of an announcement having an adverse effect on oil movement. He would decide to make a statement after that particular period had passed.
Therefore, we are accepting and recognising commercial confidentiality and we are also recognising that undue publicity at the wrong time may have an adverse effect. All we are asking is for the Minister to accept this very simple amendment which would be a little gesture towards Parliament and at least keeping Parliament informed. However, the noble Lord the Minister has decided that he will not accept the amendment. I think that his reply will look rather perverse in Hansard; his refusal will not look very good. Nevertheless, it is his decision, and in those circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [The Agency]:
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) The Agency shall offer appointments and employment to suitable persons at present employed by the British National Oil Corporation; and if the Agency is unable to offer terms of appointment or employment to the person or persons concerned which are no less favourable than the terms of appointment or employment which were applicable to that person or those persons when employed by the British National Oil Corporation, then the person or persons shall receive the same terms of severance and redundancy as others appointed to and employed by the British National Oil Corporation.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, we moved an amendment along these lines at Committee stage. But I should be less than honest if I did not say to the House that I have received no representation from the employees of BNOC about this matter. Nevertheless,

501
I think it is right and proper that the Opposition should be absolutely reassured about the fears they have for the staff, their conditions of service and what will happen to them, especially in regard to their severance payments, should they refuse to accept a job which gives them salaries and conditions of service less than they believed was their due. It is right and proper that the Opposition should raise this matter again.
During the Committee stage the noble Lord assured the House that he had gone a long way to satisfying all the fears and difficulties that might then arise. He said that two months had elapsed since an amendment had been moved in the House of Commons, that a lot of water had flowed under the bridge since then and many misunderstandings had perhaps been removed. Since 31st July a further 10 or 11 weeks have elapsed, so that hopefully the noble Lord the Minister will be able to tell me that all the possible difficulties have now been ironed out, that there is no possible way in which staff could be put at a disadvantage, and that we can have the assurance from him that the whole of the staff affected are completely and utterly satisfied with the arrangements which the Government propose. Naturally if he can give me such assurances I should not wish to proceed further with this amendment.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I can probably satisfy the noble Lord in what he seeks in this amendment. The position of those affected by the proposed abolition of BNOC has been fully discussed both in the other place and in our debate at Committee stage. I made clear then the principles on which it was right for redundancy compensation to be payable and the circumstances in which such payments would be unacceptable.
I recognise that the amendment attempts to implement those principles. However, there are two reasons I believe that I should not accept it. First, it suffers from the same defect as Amendment No. 13 which the noble Lord tabled in Committee in that its first provision could require the agency to take on many more staff than it would need. Secondly, for all practical purposes the amendment, if adopted, would itself, so to speak, be redundant. From what the noble Lord has said obviously he does not intend to press this amendment. I am glad that the situation which now exists would make that unnecessary, anyway.
I understand that apart from those whose jobs will transfer unchanged to the agency, all those BNOC staff whom the agency would wish to continue to employ but on different terms of employment have been given the opportunity to say whether they would be prepared to accept the terms offered. As I indicated in Committee, I have no reason to suppose that in handling these matters BNOC and the future management of the agency have acted otherwise than on the principles regarding the payment of compensation which the noble Lord is concerned to protect. Obviously the noble Lord would not wish me to involve myself in specific cases, but I can give him the assurance in general which he seeks.
Since therefore all questions relating to which BNOC staff will transfer to the OPA and which will qualify for the redundancy terms offered by BNOC have already been resolved, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for that information and his reassurance. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 25, leave out ("one") and insert ("two").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, again, noble Lords will be aware that this amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, during the Committee stage. I have retabled it at this stage to elicit a response from the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who, as he will remember, said at the end of the Committee stage debate:
"I give the noble Lord the assurance that I shall discuss this with my officials and get their reactions to what he has suggested, without any commitment. It is a valid point, and I am perfectly prepared to look at it".—[Official Report, 31/7/85; col. 294.]
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that responsibility for the performance of any of the agency's functions cannot be devolved to fewer than two members, officers or employees of the agency. As Schedule I (5)(2) stands, the minimum is one and this is not an adequate precaution against important functions being delegated to one, possibly junior, employee. I understand the safeguard that such devolution of responsibility has to be under the general directions of the agency. Nonetheless, the agency will be performing crucial functions with a small staff For these reasons it seems sensible that any of the agency's functions should be performed by the co-operation of at least two members, officers or employees.
Before I say any more on this matter I should like to hear the noble Lord's reply and, in particular. the results of the discussions which he has had with his officials. I feel sure that he has had discussions and therefore I hope he will be able to reassure us on this point. Perhaps he has come to the conclusion that the best way of resolving the problem is to accept my amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, has rightly pointed out, in Committee the amendment was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. I undertook to consider, without commitment, and that is exactly what I have done. What I undertook to do was consider the suggestion made by the noble Lord that this paragraph, 5(2), might be amended to limit the scope to which the functions of the agency could be delegated to its employees.
I fully understand the point which concerns noble Lords opposite. However, with the greatest respect to their views I believe that their worries are unfounded. I remain of the view that any amendment would be unhelpful to the agency.
Paragraph 5 provides that the agency may delegate to any of its members, officers and employees the discharge of its functions. A decision of the agency will be required before arrangements permitting delegation are made and the fact that any delegation will remain,
"under the general directions of the Agency",
itself imposes a limit on any authority delegated to the agency's management and staff. As with any business

503
entity, most of the agency's activities will be carried out by individual members of staff acting either alone—I mentioned in Committee one possible situation where this might be appropriate, but there are many others—or in concert with their colleagues.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, suggested that while some functions might be properly delegated to a single employee, others might not. He wondered therefore whether I might consider limiting the scope of the functions which an employee could be delegated to perform. I entirely agree with him in principle. But in the real world the definition of what can be properly delegated is liable to change either as circumstances change or as individuals concerned change or develop. It would not be right to have to resort to primary legislation whenever we found that the definition had to be changed. The board of the agency should properly be responsible for defining the limits of delegation; and I find it inconceivable that the board would allow decisions to be taken by an individual who was not qualified so to do.
I hope therefore noble Lords will accept that although technically the point which has been raised has some validity—and I do not argue that—in practice the power simply allows the agency to conduct its affairs on normal business lines. In view of that, I trust that the noble Lord may be prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I will withdraw the amendment, but I must say that I still remain a little unhappy. I do not think the noble Lord has been able to completely reassure me on the point, and I am not at all sure that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, will be reassured when he reads the noble Lord's remarks in Hansard. However, I think we shall leave it there for the time being. We may wish to come back to the matter on Third Reading. We shall read very closely what the noble Lord has said, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill
5.3 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 8 [Rectification of defectively expressed documents]:
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom)The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 38, at end insert ("and contain a description of the land to which the application relates").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as a prologue to this amendment I should say that I believe the House will now have available to it the printed amendments, though I understand they could not be printed yesterday owing to difficulties beyond the printers' control. However, I shall take particular care to
504
explain the purpose of the Government amendments as noble Lords will have had less notice of these than is normal.
With the leave of the House I shall speak to this amendment and to Amendment No. 38 at the same time.
Amendment No. 38: Schedule 2, page 45, line 25, at end insert—
("Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 (c. 101)
. In section 159 (litigiousity not to begin before date of registration in Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications of notice of summons) after the word "summons", where thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and contain a description of the lands to which the summons relates".
. In Schedule RR (form of notice of summons) after the word "signeting" there shall be inserted the words "The summons relates to [insert description of lands].".").
During earlier proceedings on this Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, expressed some concern about the effects of notices of litigiosity under Clause 8(7) on sales of land by third parties. I was unable to accept the amendment on the point in Committee, on the grounds that litigiosity only restricts the debtor in an obligation or defenders to an action, and hence does not affect directly a third party who has acquired land in good faith—quite apart from the general protection given to third parties in Clause 9. Nevertheless, in the light of comments which have been made the Government have considered more closely the provisions on notices of litigiosity, and have concluded that both Clause 8(8) and the existing provisions in the Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 could be improved.
Clause 8(8), deals with notices of litigiosity in relation to actions of rectification, and it merely requires the notice to give the names and designations of the parties to the application and the date when authority for service or citation was granted. This follows the existing provisions in Section 159 and Schedule RR of the 1868 Act for notices of litigiosity relating to actions for reduction and actions of adjudication. However, lawyers carrying out a search in relation to a transaction involving someone of the same name as a pursuer or defender in, for example, a reduction action already encounter difficulties in ascertaining whether the action affects their client's interest, especially where the name is a common one or where only a business or agent's address is given. Even when the relevant party has correctly been identified, confusion may arise where he owns pieces of land other than the one affected by the action. While it will usually be possible for the seller of the land to prove the transaction in question is not struck at by the notice of litigiosity, this will involve more delay and expense. Previously these difficulties had been tolerable, but with the increase in number of entries in the Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications, and the vastly increased volume of searches the problem is becoming a more severe one. Therefore, these amendments provide that notices of litigiosity, under both this Bill and the 1868 Act, shall also give a description of the land to which the summons or application mentioned in the notice relates.
I therefore commend these amendments—which, perhaps I may add, have the strong support of the Law Society of Scotland—to your Lordships ' House. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for this amendment, which I think goes a long way to meet the criticisms which I endeavoured to put and which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, did put at Committee stage, and I also commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Amendments of Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981]:
Lord Wilson of Langside Lord Wilson of Langside moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 12, line 38, at end insert—
("( ) In section 15(3) of that Act at the end there shall be inserted the words "and shall arrest him on finding the said non-applicant spouse flagrante delicto and being satisfied that such arrest is necessary for the protection and in the interests of the applicant spouse.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2 standing in my name. This is a very simple little amendment. It aims at tightening up the provisions regulating the circumstances in which a constable may arrest a person in breach of a matrimonial interdict. Your Lordships will remember that of course the matrimonial interdict was an invention of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act 1981. That defines a matrimonial interdict as one which

(a) restrains or prohibits any conduct of one spouse towards the other spouse or a child of the family, or

(b) prohibits a spouse from entering or remaining in a matrimonial home or in a specified area in the vicinity of the matrimonial home".

Section 15 of the 1981 Act provided that the court on the application of an applicant's spouse could attach a power of arrest to any such interdict. It is important to bear in mind that such a warrant to arrest cannot be brought into operation unless it has been served upon the other spouse, so that he is of course fully certiorated of the circumstance that if he breaches the interdict which the court has pronouced against him, he will be liable to arrest.
The original provision in the 1981 Act was to the effect that:
"a constable may arrest without warrant… if he has reasonable cause for suspecting that spouse of being in breach of the interdict".
As some noble Lords may remember, I put down an amendment at Committee stage suggesting that the power of arrest should be obligatory and this was objected to on almost all sides; but it is important, I think, to remind your Lordships that the inspiration for the present amendment comes from those who are concerned with giving the necessary aid, comfort and support for the women and the children, if any, who have suffered abuse in their homes be it mental or physical or sexual, and in their relationships with their husband or with a man. Of course, the situations which the police have to deal with are very difficult. They always have been so, and I suppose they always will be so, where they have to intervene in what looks like a social and domestic background. But those who are concerned with this difficult problem of our society—which seems to have become more of a problem; certainly, it is talked about more and written about more than it once was—are concerned that there
506
is an apparent reluctance on the part of the police to enforce these warrants of arrest in circumstances in which their clients, the distressed women, feel that they ought to be enforced.
One has to consider the background to this matter. It is one which raises this question. Is the protection which the court has given or purports to give to these unfortunate women being made sufficiently effective? As I say, there is evidence that in certain cases the reluctance of the police is such that perhaps the protection which the courts had intended to give to women is not being given; or so they tell me.
What this present amendment suggests is that the power to arrest granted by the warrant shall be exercised where the non-applicant spouse (the spouse who is alleged to be in breach of the interdict) is found in flagrante delicto and the constable is satisfied that such arrest is necessary for the protection and in the interests of the applicant spouse. I can quite understand the reluctance which there often is in some circumstances to give the police too sweeping powers. This anxiety was expressed at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. Why on earth should a constable, if he finds a man in blatant breach of the interdict and is satisfied that the woman needs protection, not arrest him? I cannot understand this over-anxiety in a situation of this kind. One has to remember that these men, so those who have to deal with the problem say, are very difficult and awkward to deal with. It is very easy for them to lurk at the street corner nearby and then conceal themselves when the police are called to the scene; and so on.
This is the classic kind of situation that arises with these unfortunate women. They often lead an intolerable life, persecuted by their former partners to a quite intolerable degree. What I am suggesting to your Lordships is that in these circumstances there would be no danger of saying that, in the situation where a man is found in flagrante delicto and the woman obviously needs protection, the power of arrest should be exercised. That is the object of this amendment and I would ask your Lordships to approve it.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I would fully support the spirit behind this amendment in the sense that I think it is recognised on all sides of the House that there is far too much violence in the home and that unfortunately there have been many cases where sometimes very severe violence would have been prevented if the police who had been called to the situation had in fact taken the person involved into custody. But in my view this amendment is not the way to go about it. The general position of a police officer is that he has a duty to see that the peace is kept; but, attached to that duty, is that he shall interfere with the freedom of the subject as little as possible. And there is a specific duty put upon him if he charges somebody with an offence that he is to do whatever reasonably can be done to keep the person from being kept in custody.
This amendment would appear to go against that principle, and it would be unfortunate if that were done. I would suggest that the way that this problem can be dealt with is more in the line of directions by chief constables and members of the Government to

507
police officers as to how they should deal with the situation, rather than by statute. That is the principle. But when one comes to consider the actual wording of the amendment and adds it into the Act, I think it is very difficult to see just exactly what a policeman is supposed to do with it.
If the amendment were in, the whole section would read as follows:
"If, by virtue of subsection (1) above, a power of arrest is attached to an interdict, a constable may arrest without warrant the non-applicant spouse if he has reasonable cause for suspecting that spouse of being in breach of the interdict."
and now I come to the amendment—
"and shall arrest him on finding the said non-applicant spouse flagrante delicto and being satisfied that such arrest is necessary for the protection and in the interests of the applicant spouse".
The interdict is to prevent the non-applicant spouse from being at or in the vicinity of the matrimonial home. I should have thought that the normal situation where a constable has reasonable cause for suspecting the spouse of being in breach of the interdict is if he is at or near the home. I am not sure what diference there would be if he would not also be in flagrante delicto, whatever that might be interpreted to mean by the courts. If he is in or at the door of the house or in the vicinity of the house, is he in flagrante delicto? And then is the constable given power to arrest, or is he given instruction to arrest, by the Act? In my view, it would be very difficult to get a coherent meaning out of the section if the amendment were added.
Another minor but important point is that the interdict by Section 14 of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act is to be for the benefit of the other spouse or a child of the family. If this amendment were to be accepted as it stands, one would have the extraordinary situation that, as long as the non-applicant spouse was in flagrante delicto battering his wife, he should be arrested, but that did not matter if it was only for the protection of the child. I would have thought, on that small point, it would be necessary to add to the amendment, if it were to be acceptable to your Lordships, the words "or a child of the family". However, in general and for the reasons which I have endeavoured to give, I would oppose the amendment.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I cannot advise your Lordships to accept this amendment. I fully understand the purpose of the noble and learned Lord in proposing it, and should say at the outset that I fully sympathise with his concern that there must be an effective procedure for the enforcement of the protection provided by matrimonial interdict. But I find myself entirely in agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has said on the question of how it is best to deal with this situation and, also and more particularly, with the point which he makes, and which I think he is repeating from the Committee stage, about the question of constitutional principle. I have said before, and I repeat today, that the Government are committed to ensuring that the 1981 Act does afford the effective remedies against domestic violence that it was intended to. It is for this reason that the Government have commissioned research into the operation of the Act in order that assessment on the basis of reliable evidence as to whether there is
508
need for a change in the domestic violence provisions of the Act can be made.
We expect this research to be concluded early next year, and we shall then consider what action should be taken in the light of such recommendations as are made. In the meantime, in the light of the concern which was expressed in this House at Committee stage and in another place and also by Scottish Women's Aid, I am presently reviewing the guidelines issued to chief constables on the Act of 1982 in order to see whether some further clarification might be of some assistance to the police. When this review of the guidelines has been completed we intend to consider with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland whether the training and instruction on the Act given to police officers, both locally and at the Scottish Police College, could be improved and enhanced to give greater emphasis to the points of concern which have been identified.
It was agreed in another place after extensive discussion of this same question that the most appropriate and sensible way to address such problems would be by concentrating upon police training and clarification, if necessary, of the guidelines to chief constables. That was the conclusion reached by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and I concur in it.
There are also a number of reasons why I believe that an amendment in the terms proposed is unnecessary and may well have undesirable consequences. First of all, I should make clear that even the example the noble and learned Lord quoted about the difficult and awkward customer who concealed himself before the police arrived would not seem, on the face of his amendment, to be covered by what is proposed there, because it could never be said that such a person was caught in flagrante delicto. As I said, I would take issue as to whether that particular matter would be one which fell within the terms of the amendment.
I should make clear that the present guidelines issued to chief constables state that while a constable has a certain discretion which he may decide to exercise in trivial cases of breach of interdict, in most cases the constable will be likely to arrest an offending spouse. As I have said, a review of the guidelines is being undertaken at present and I shall give careful consideration to the question of whether additional emphasis should be placed upon the expectation that the offending spouse will be arrested in all but the most trivial cases and will certainly be arrested where this appears necessary to protect the other spouse or children. Where a matrimonial interdict has been breached, I believe that the discretion not to arrest should be used very sparingly and only for good reasons, bearing in mind that the safety of the applicant spouse and children is the paramount consideration. If additional emphasis is given to these points in the revised guidelines, I do not think that it will be necessary to incorporate in statute a mandatory requirement to arrest in certain circumstances. Under the present guidelines a policeman could certainly be expected to arrest in the circumstances to which the amendment applies: that is, where a constable has reasonable cause to suspect a husband of being in breach of a matrimonial interdict and where it is evident that arrest is necessary for the protection of the wife or children.

509
More importantly in a sense, I have profound reservations as to whether it is desirable to introduce in statute a mandatory requirement to arrest. The discretionary power of arrest is well precedented in the criminal law. The discretionary power is humane and sensible, and enables police officers to adopt a commonsense and flexible approach in circumstances where arrest may not always be the most appropriate means of dealing with the situation. I think it is necessary to recognise that there will be circumstances where arrest under Section 15(3) would not be appropriate nor in the best interests of all the parties concerned. When a similar amendment was proposed in another place at an earlier stage of the Bill, there was extensive discussion about the circumstances in which it would be a reasonable exercise of a police officer's discretion not to arrest a spouse who was in breach of a matrimonial interdict. I believe it was rightly concluded in that debate that some flexibility is desirable. I think we have to recognise that in this difficult area, it is not a realistic or practical approach to attempt to prescribe in primary legislation the appropriate action to take in every conceivable circumstance. There must be a balance between the general intention to be stated in legislation, the supplementary guidance and advice which can be given in guidelines and training, and what finally has to be left to the common sense and judgment of police officers acting in different situations.
I would simply say that the amendment would, I suggest to your Lordships, be more likely to confuse rather than to clarify the matter in this difficult area. After all, what it provides for is the introduction of a provision for mandatory arrest in very restricted circumstances which will then sit, as the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has pointed out, side by side with an existing provision for discretionary arrest which already exists and which is based upon reasonable cause for suspecting a non-applicant spouse of being in breach of a matrimonial interdict.
I would suggest that there is a prospect that introducing a higher test for mandatory arrest based upon apprehending the offending spouse in flagrante delicto might imply that Parliament had signalled that it was less necessary to arrest when the offending spouse had left the scene before the arrival of the police, and that cannot be correct. The important question is not whether the offending spouse is caught in the act but whether protection is needed, and I do not think it is desirable that the state should give the impression that being caught in the act is a decisive factor.
5.30 p.m.
The noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, has already pointed out, too, that there is an obvious error in the amendment in that the mandatory arrest would obtain only where the protection was to be sought for the applicant spouse and not for the children of the family although they would fall within the general ambit of the matrimonial interdict. For all these reasons, I cannot commend this amendment to your Lordships. I hope that in view of what I have said, and with the undertakings I have given in regard to direction in guidelines and to training of the police, together with the fact that we are maintaining an eye upon the
510
operation of the Act and have commissioned research into it, that the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate sits down, may I ask him whether in the context of the guidelines—and I accept without qualification that this amendment, although not designed to do so, would tend to confuse rather than to clarify—consideration may be given as to whether breach of guidelines constitutes a disciplinary offence, and whether in the context of the codes of practice breach of them may be relied upon in court as seeking either to negative or constitute civil liability?
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and my noble friend Lord Morton have shown natural concern about the importance of this matter. But the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate said that he was demonstrating his concern by the fact that there is to be a review of the working of the Act, which, after all, has not been on the statute book for very long. Are we to hear anything about this? Is the review to be published or have we just to understand that it is finished when he makes some change, or does not make any change at all, in respect of guidelines'' How is Parliament to be informed about the result of this review and what action are the Government to take?
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend whether the experience is that Section 15(3) of the Matrimonial Homes (Family Protection) (Scotland) Act is not working well? We had considerable discussion on this in 1981, as I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson, will remember, and from the remarks which he and my noble and learned friend made there appears to be a suggestion that there is something wrong with the way in which it was eventually framed. This is an extremely important matter because, among all the troubles in the world, rows between husband and wife are just about the worst, and is some cases they positively have to be prevented by physical force. I do not want to comment on whether the amendment of the noble and learned Lord is right, but I think that the police should have ample ability to prevent wives or husbands from interfering unduly with the family or with the children. I should like to know whether there is any evidence that the police have inadequate powers or inadequate status to deal with this matter.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to the points that have been raised. May I deal first with the question raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway? I am somewhat at a loss to understand his reference to codes of practice, but the guidelines are simply directions which the Lord Advocate has given to chief constables as to the manner in which the Act as it is presently framed should be used by police officers. It is on the basis of that, too, that instruction and training are given to police officers. It would not be within my competence at this point to indicate whether or not that would appropriately form a

511
disciplinary offence. However, I shall bring my noble friend's remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State who is, of course, responsible for the police.
As regards the point of the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, may I say how glad I am to see him here because at one stage, reading my copy of The Times newspaper last month, I understood him to have been translated to a different seat——
Lord Ross of Marnock: I turned it down.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: What I indicated was that the Government have commissioned research into the operation of the Act and the results of that research will be published. As regards the point of my noble friend Lord Selkirk, I do not necessarily accept that there is anything intrinsically wrong with the legislation. Like all these things, it takes some time for it to bed down. I should of course add that we are speaking about a power of arrest which arises in civil proceedings, but a confrontation between man and wife may well give rise to criminal charges and that is apart from the matter with which we are dealing. But I assure my noble friend that we are keeping a close eye upon the way in which the Act is operated.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, in the light of what has been said—putting aside the technicalities—I shall not press this amendment; but with the leave of the House, perhaps I may say this. I appreciate the technical points that have been made in relation to the amendment and the force of everything that has been said, particularly by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate and the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, about this matter. My principal anxiety is that Parliament should give reassurance to those who are concerned in the field with dealing with this problem, and to some extent, I am greatly reassured by what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has said on that matter.
What the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said is very important, because the matter should not just be forgotten, and we should be assured that the monitoring of the working of the scheme is thorough and complete. It should give reassurance—I am sorry to be repetitive, as I have already used that word—to those who are burdened with dealing with this problem in the streets and the homes of our cities and throughout the country. To some extent, my concern about it was increased by the letter from the Crown Office to Women's Aid—one of the principal charities dealing with this matter in Scotland—of which I was critical at the Committee stage. As I read that letter, which I thought was a piece of classic bureaucracy, I felt that those who ought to have been concerned in Edinburgh did not seem to appreciate the anxieties of the people who have this problem to deal with. I am greatly reassured now because I am sure that after the discussion we have had the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will ensure that the problem is appreciated and that, so far as it is practicably possible to do so, the Act will be made effective. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 12, line 39, leave out ("(1)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak to this amendment and to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
Amendment No. 4: Page 12, line 40, after ("couples") insert ("(a) in subsection (1)").
Amendment No. 5: Page 12, line 40, at end insert—
";and

(b) in subsection (6), in the definition of "occupancy rights"

(i) in paragraph (a) for the words from "not" to the end there shall be substituted the words "to continue to occupy the house;" and

(ii) at the end there shall be inserted the words—"and, without prejudice to the generality of these rights, includes the right to continue to occupy or, as the case may be, to enter and occupy the house together with any child residing with the cohabitating couple".").

Clause 13(2) and (3) of the Bill amend and supplement the definition of occupancy rights of married couples contained in Section 1(1) of the 1981 Act, so as to make clear that the occupancy right in the matrimonial home of a non-entitled spouse is indeed a right to occupy, including all the rights normally inherent in the right to occupy, and is not merely a right not to be excluded, and to make it clear that this right to occupy includes the right for a non-entitled spouse to have any child of the family with her.
These amendments are intended to make corresponding provision as concerns the definition of occupancy rights of cohabiting couples contained in Section 18(6) of the 1981 Act. There seems to me to be no justification why there should be any material difference between the occupancy rights of married and cohabiting couples as far as the definition of these rights is concerned and I trust that your Lordships will agree with me in this matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 4:
[Printed above.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendment No. 4 already, and for the convenience of the House perhaps I may move it along with Amendment No. 5 to which I have also spoken. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 18 [Small claims]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 16, line 12, leave out from ("prescribed") to end of line 14 and insert ("by the Lord Advocate by order").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak to this amendment along with Amendments Nos. 7, 13 and 14.
Amendment No. 7: Page 16, line 17, at end insert—
"((4) An order under subsection (2) above shall be by statutory instrument but shall not be made unless a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.")
Amendment No. 13: Page 17, line 3, leave out ("made").

513
Amendment No. 14: Page 17, line 4, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 6 and insert ("but shall not be made unless a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.").
At Committee stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, proposed that orders under Clause 18 should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in each House of Parliament in relation to a draft of the proposed orders. In this he was supported by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. I undertook to consider the arguments which were then put forward for affirmative resolution. I have done so and I accept what was said, that the affirmative resolution procedure of a draft of the orders is appropriate in view of the general importance and interest of the subject matter of the orders. Accordingly, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 7:
[Printed above.]
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to express my own personal appreciation to my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate for having taken on board the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, which in fact has my support.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, with the leave of the House perhaps I may apologise for not expressing my appreciation. Things went on so quickly and my cerebration is so slow that I was caught on the wrong foot. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, took the opportunity to intervene. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. This augurs well for the consideration that is given to your Lordships' debates in this House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 16, line 33, leave out ("who").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House perhaps I may speak to this amendment along with Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 12.
Amendment No. 9: Page 16, line 34, after "((a))" insert ("who,")
Amendment No. 10: Page 16, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert—
("(b) on whose part there has been unreasonable conduct in relation to the proceedings or the claim").
Amendment No. 12: Page 17, line 1, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("; nor do they apply").
At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, questioned whether the language of paragraph (b) in new Section 36B(3) was appropriate in that the words "frivolously" and "vexaciously" did not appear to add anything to the concept of unreasonableness in the context of the paragraph. The noble Lord then suggested that what we really had in mind was unreasonable conduct of the parties and he put down his own amendment to that effect.
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for raising the point. I have considered it carefully and I have come to the view that the form of wording along the lines that he suggested would indeed express quite clearly the Government's intentions. The noble Lord has in fact put down an amendment which is Amendment No. 11.1 should say that that does not go quite as far as the one which I have put down which, as noble Lords will see, covers both proceedings and the claim itself. Accordingly, I commend the amendments to your Lordships and beg to move.
The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, before we leave this clause altogether perhaps we could draw the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate a little on what he proposes to do under the powers he has of making an instrument. While the noble and learned Lord has been extremely sensitive to parliamentary wishes—I think we should be very grateful to him for that—my experience is that people do not learn what is in an Act of Parliament until about three or four years have gone by. Therefore, if this is to be successful, and I hope it will be, people should get an idea fairly soon as to what exactly these new courts, which I think are an imaginative and interesting development, are going to be.
We want to know about three things. First, what is going to be the limit to which they are extended I see that the figure of £500 or £1,000 is suggested. My preference is for £ 1,000. I say this because £ 100 just after the Second World War would have been equivalent to £1,000 today. After another 20 years it will probably be valued at about £50. I should have thought that this should be allowed a reasonably long period in which to be understood.
The second point concerns the limit to expenses, the point at which expenses will not be payable. I imagine that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has in mind that this will be a personal litigant, probably not employing counsel or solicitors of any kind. I do not know what figure the noble and learned Lord has in mind. Thirdly, there is the question of the amount of expenses which could be allowed. If expenses are not allowed, will court fees still be payable? I think it is proper that we should have some idea about this. The reason I venture to draw this matter to the attention of my noble and learned friend is that the sooner people understand the nature of this court the more they will use it. At the present time probably up to 100,000 cases could be usefully dealt with in this court.
Perhaps the noble and learned Lord could give us some useful indication. If he cannot I shall of course understand, but perhaps he will then bring out his orders fairly soon.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for having accepted the intention behind my amendment to take out "frivolously" and "vexaciously". I am also grateful to him for improving what I had suggested. Therefore I shall not be moving Amendment No. 11.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, I should like to press the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate

515
on the point that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. It is important that we know exactly who is going to be covered by these small claims. This is a very important innovation in our law and one that has been widely welcomed by consumer associations, the Law Society and so on. Are we going to get this £500 limit? I believe that £500 is the financial limit in English law, but that was set in 1981. So, if it is was suitable for 1981, it is out of date now. We should remember that this will not be applied this year—it will probably be next year at the earliest. It may well be 1987. So I hope that the figure of £500 is being dismissed very quickly from the mind of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I suggest that it should be at least £1,000. Many consumer items are very expensive. Goodness gracious, if one goes to buy a lawnmower one discovers just how much one has to pay for it. These are relatively small but important items and can give very considerable cause for complaint. There is now little or no redress for the consumer because the cost of litigation puts people off altogether. If we are making the change let us be practical and realistic about the prices. I know that the noble and learned Lord does not want to put anything in, but he should open his mind to us in relation to this matter so that we can come at him again and persuade him to do the right thing.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may be permitted to answer points which have been made by both my noble friend Lork Selkirk and the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock. I shall do no more than commend to them what I said in Committee on these very matters. I went into them very fully. I should make it clear that the small claims procedure is not restrictive to party litigants but is aimed at permitting those who wish to appear on their own, or who wish to enlist a friend, to make use of a relatively informal procedure. I have listened to what has been said by your Lordships in respect of both the terminology of this Bill and more generally about limits. I shall certainly bear those comments in mind. I remind your Lordships that the draft orders will be subject to affirmative procedures and will be put before both Houses.
Finally, mention was made of court fees. I make it clear that they do not fall within my area of responsibility but within that of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. I undertook to draw this matter to the attention of my right honourable friend at the time of our debate in Committee, and that remains the position.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 9.
[Printed earlier: col. 513.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 9):
Page 16, line 34, after "((a))" insert ("who,").
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, before I call Amendment No. 10, I must point out to the House that if this amendment is agreed to, then I cannot call Amendment No. 11, which should be in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 10:
[Printed earlier: col. 513.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 10):
Page 16, leave out lines 41 to 43 and insert—
("(b) on whose part there has been unreasonable conduct in relation to the proceedings or the claim").
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 12:
[Printed earlier: col. 512.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 12):
Page 17, line l, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("; nor do they apply").
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 13:
[Printed earlier: col. 513.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to both this amendment and the succeeding amendment, Amendment No. 14, when moving Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 13):
Page 17, line 3, leave out ("made").
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 14:
[Printed earlier: col. 513.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 14):
Page 17, line 4, leave out from ("instrument") to end of line 6 and insert ("but shall not be made unless a draft of it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament".).
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 17, line 34, leave out from ("(3)") to ("(2C)") in line 36 and insert—
("(a) after "(2A)" there shall be inserted the words "(2B) or" ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a purely drafting amendment in Clause 18(3)(b) to make clear that the decisions of the sheriff relating to remits made under Section 37(3)(a) of the 1971 Act, which are not to be capable of review, are those under subsection (2A), (2B) or (2C) of Section 37(3) of the 1971 Act. The present drafting in the clause might imply that the decisions relating to remits may be made only where all three of the subsections which I have mentioned are involved, and that would be unfortunate. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Fines in respect of drug offences]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 32, line 24, after ("made") insert ("by the offender").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I shall speak also to Amendment No. 18:
Amendment No 18: Page 32, line 25, leave out ("the accused") and insert ("he").
In tabling these two amendments I am seeking to give effect to an undertaking which was made in Committee. These amendments ensure that in cases where an offender convicted of a drug trafficking crime is sentenced by virtue of Clause 39 to a fine in addition to a term of imprisonment or detention, the court should bear in mind the profits which the accused himself has made from the crime.
I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that it would be clearly undesirable if the court was obliged to have regard in fining one person to profits made by another, possibly a co-accused. This might not present a real problem in practice, as the court will always have regard to an offender's ability to pay before imposing a fine, but it is desirable to put the position beyond doubt. I trust that this meets the point properly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, during discussion of this clause in Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, perhaps I may take up a moment of time just to repeat my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for making this amendment, which I believe to be of some importance.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 18:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Nugent of Guildford): My Lords, I should explain that Amendment No. 19 pre-empts Amendments Nos. 20 and 21. If it is agreed to, I shall not be able to call those two amendments.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 32, line 28, leave out from ("in") to ("the") in line 30 and insert ("paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (4) or any offence mentioned in paragraphs (d) to (g) of that subsection where such latter offence involves a controlled drug as defined in section 2(1)(a) of).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to extend the new measures in Clause 39, which aims to deprive convicted drug dealers of the profits of their crimes, to cover offences involving all types of restrictive substances. In doing so it meets and expands upon a point raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna.
As I have said, the purpose of Clause 39 is to deprive convicted drug traffickers of the profits of their evil trade. In so doing the Government sought to reflect their particular concern about those controlled drugs which are described as Class A, such as heroin and cocaine. However, there are other drugs which fall within the two further classes, Class B and Class C, which may again be subject to trafficking and which could well cause misery and suffering as a result of the trade of drug traffickers and such evil men.
In those circumstances I suggest to the House that it is only proper that Parliament should make perfectly clear to drug traffickers that they can expect to be deprived of any profits derived from their crimes
518
regardless of the category of drugs involved The purpose of this amendment is to put that beyond doubt. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, yet again I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for taking on board the intention of an amendment which I suggested in Committee. I should have thought that it was fairly clear that drugs such as amphetamines and cannabis are drugs from which traffickers make very large profits. It is appropriate that they should be penalised also.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 not moved.]
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 33, line 10, leave out ("accused") and insert ("offender").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a minor drafting amendment which seeks to clarify the reference to a convicted person. As presently drafted the clause makes reference to a person who has been convicted as "the accused". Your Lordships will appreciate that that is not strictly an accurate description; a person in such circumstances should be described as "the offender". I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Further provision as to fines]:
6 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 33, line 30, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: For convenience and by leave of the House, I would also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 35 and 39.
Amendment No. 35: Page 41, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Schedule (Transitional provisions) to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of making transitional provision.").
Amendment No. 39: After Schedule 2 insert the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Section 36
1. Sections 141 A, 141B, 346A and 346B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 do not apply in relation to a trial which has commenced before the coming into force of those sections; and, for the purposes of this paragaph, a trial shall be taken to commence—

(a) in the case of solemn proceedings, when the oath is administered to the jury;

(b) in the case of summary proceedings, when the first witness is sworn.

Section 38
2. The amendment to section 120 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 effected by section 38 of this Act has no effect in relation to proceedings in which the complaint was served on the accused before the coming into force of section 38 of this Act.
Section 39
3. Section 193B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall not affect the punishment for an offence committed before the coming into force of section 39 of this Act.
4. The amendments to section 407(1A) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 effected by section 40 of this Act have no effect in relation to fines imposed in respect of offences committed before the coming into force of section 40 of this Act.").
Clauses 36 and 38 of the Bill change the rules on admissibility of evidence in court proceedings for sexual offences and also for vehicle licensing offences, while Clauses 39 and 40 change the penalties which can be imposed for an offence in certain circumstances. Clearly it would be unacceptable for the rules of evidence to be changed during the course of a trial. Equally it would be unjust, and contrary to Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights, if the penalty for an offence could be retrospectively increased or an additional penalty imposed. The new schedule of transitional provisions therefore provides that Clause 36 shall not apply to trials, and Clause 38 shall not apply to proceedings commenced before they come into force. Similarly Clauses 39 and 40 cannot change penalties for offences committed before they came into force. The new schedule is governed by Clause 60, and as a consequential to the new schedule the existing transitional provision in Clause 40(2) is deleted.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Functions of Parole Board for Scotland and local review committees in relation to children detained on conviction on indictment]:
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I should explain before calling Amendment No. 24 that there is a small misprint. It should read "Page 35, line 23", not "line 12".
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 35, line 23, leave out from ("words") to the end of the line and insert (" "section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 or section 206 or 206A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975" ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, again for convenience and by leave of the House I wish to speak to this amendment along with the subsequent amendments, including Amendment No. 29.
Amendment No. 25: Page 35, line 14, leave out from ("(c)") to end of line 15 and insert ("for the word "applies" there shall be substituted the words "or the said section 206 applies or the recall of persons to whom the said section 12 or the said section 206A applies." ").
Amendment No. 26: Page 35, line 22, leave out from ("words") to end of line 24 and insert (", section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 or section 206 or 206A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975" ").
Amendment No. 27: Clause 45, page 36, line 8, after ("terms") insert ("and either—

(a) the Parole Board for Scotland so recommends; or

(b) it appears to him to be in the public interest to do so before consultation with the Board is practicable,").

Amendment No. 28: Page 36, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall inform a person recalled under subsection (5) above of the reasons for his recall, so that the person may make representations in writing with respect to his recall to the Parole Board for Scotland; and the Board may, on receipt of such representations, require the Secretary of State to release him forthwith.").
Amendment No. 29: Page 36, line 23, at end insert—
("(2) In section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 (supervision of persons released from young offenders' institution)—

(a) in subsection (7) after the word "above", where first occurring, there shall be inserted ("and either—

(a) the Parole Board for Scotland so recommends; or

520

(b) it appears to him to be in the public interest to do so before consultation with the Board is practicable,");

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

"(7A) The Secretary of State shall inform a person recalled under subsection (7) above of the reasons for his recall, so that the person may make representations in writing with respect to his recall to the Parole Board for Scotland; and the Board may, on receipt of such representations, require the Secretary of State to release him forthwith,"; and

(c) in subsection (9)—

(i) for the words "that person" there shall be substituted the words "a person released under subsection (7A) above or this subsection"; and

(ii) after the word "under", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "subsection (7A) above or".").

My Lords, these amendments relate to an issue which was raised in earlier proceedings by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, and to which he has returned in an amendment tabled in his name in the present Marshalled List. His principal concern was that as Clause 45 presently stands it gives no right of appeal to a child who is recalled by the Secretary of State under subsection (5), that is, at the completion of his sentence. I did, I think, my best to persuade him during the Committee deliberations that the proposal under subsection (5) was not a constitutional novelty but simply sought to place the supervision arrangements for children released at the end of their sentence on the same basis as those for young offenders under Section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963.
I think it is fair to say that the noble Lord in withdrawing his amendment expressed the hope that the Government might come up with something better. I have considered the question very carefully and have taken account of what the noble Lord said. I think that what we now propose is in fact better.
What we seek to do by these amendments is formally to involve the Parole Board for Scotland in the recall procedure for children who have been released on supervision at the end of their sentence. Of course, the board is already involved in those cases where release occurs before the end of the sentence. These amendments provide for the board similarly to be involved in the case of children released at the end of sentence. The Secretary of State will thus recall children who have broken their supervision conditions only on the recommendation of the board, or where he believes the public interest requires recall before it is practical to consult the board. He must give reasons for the recall and the person recalled can make representations to the board. The board will have power, on receiving such representations, to order the Secretary of State to release the child immediately.
If we provide these safeguards for children released subject to supervision, I believe it is only fair and consistent to provide similar safeguards for young offenders released under supervision under Section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963. Therefore, the amendments provide for the board to 'be similarly involved in the procedure for the recall of these young offenders. I should add that the board already has similar functions under Section 62 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 in relation to the recall of prisoners or young offenders released on licence.

521
Therefore, these amendments are applying well established machinery and ensuring consistency of procedure.
The procedures we propose do not involve appeal to a court as does the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. The view which is taken is that the flexible nature of the supervision and recall arrangements make the involvement of the courts inappropriate. However, the amendment will ensure that, save in exceptional circumstances, an individual will be recalled only on the recommendation of the Parole Board, and in the event of any recall the individual will have the right to make representations to the board, and that the board will have the power to require the Secretary of State to release that individual. Thus, there is an effective appeal to an independent body.
I should say that the Parole Board have been consulted about these amendments. They have no objection to what is proposed; on the contrary, the members of the board welcome the prospect of their involvement in these arrangements and consider them to be perfectly logical. There is, I believe, agreement on all sides that the supervision of the young is a valuable instrument in helping them to pick up the threads of their lives when released from custody and, hopefully, in keeping them from further trouble.
The amendments before the House provide significant safeguards against arbitrary recall of those under supervision and recourse to a third party which is empowered to require the Secretary of State to release the individual concerned.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke on this matter, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna, for raising the point, and I commend these amendments to your Lordships.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, I am afraid I am getting repetitive, but perhaps your Lordships will not object to my thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate yet again. I welcome the Government's change of heart. At the Committee stage, my amendment was directed particularly to the question that it seemed to me wrong that the Secretary of State would be entitled to order someone to be put into detention, and that that child would have no recourse to anybody and no method of challenging the exercise of that power. The amendments that the noble and learned Lord has proposed certainly improve the amendment I had suggested, and go further, and I welcome them wholly. I also accept it is much more suitable that it is the Parole Board which has the supervisory power, rather than that a court should do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 25:
[Printed earlier: col. 519.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 25):
Page 35, line 14, leave out from ("(c)") to end of line 15 and insert ("for the word "applies" there shall be substituted the words "or the said section 206 applies or the recall of persons to whom the said section 12 or the said section 206A applies." ")
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 26:
[Printed earlier: col. 519.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think I spoke to this amendment, and to Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 under Amendment No. 24. By leave of the House, perhaps I might move en bloc Amendments Nos. 26 to 29 inclusive.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendments (Nos. 26, 27, 28 and 29):
Page 35, line 22, leave out from ("words") to end of line 24 and insert (", section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act ! 963 or section 206 or 206A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975" ").
Page 36, line 8, after ("terms") insert ("and either—

(a) the Parole Board for Scotland so recommends; or

(b) it appears to him to be in the public interest to do so before consultation with the Board is practicable,").

Page 36, line 11, at end insert—
("( )The Secretary of State shall inform a person recalled under subsection (5) above of the reasons for his recall, so that the person may make representations in writing with respect to his recall to the Parole Board for Scotland; and the Board may, on receipt of such representations, require the Secretary of State to release him forthwith.").
Page 36, line 23, at end insert—
("(2) In section 12 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1963 (supervision of persons released from young offenders' institution)—
(a) in subsection (7) after the word "above", where first occurring, there shall be inserted ("and either—

(a) the Parole Board for Scotland so recommends; or

(b) it appears to him to be in the public interest to do so before consultation with the Board is practicable);

(b) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(7A) The Secretary of State shall inform a person recalled under subsection (7) above of the reasons for his recall, so that the person may make representations in writing with respect to his recall to the Parole Board for Scotland; and the Board may, on receipt of such representations, require the Secretary of State to release him forthwith."; and
(c) in subsection (9)—

(i) for the words "that person" there shall be substituted the words "a person released under subsection (7A) above or this subsection"; and

(ii) after the word "under", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "subsection (7A) above or".").

[Amendment No. 30 not moved.]
Lord Morton of Shuna Lord Morton of Shuna had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 31:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
("Scottish Special Housing Association and Neu Town Development Corporation.
.—(1) The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 shall be amended in accordance with the following provisions of this section.
(2) In section 23(1) of that Act (authorities subject to investigation) there shall be inserted the words—

"(g) the Scottish Special Housing Association;

(h) any New Town Development Corporation;".

(3) In section 24 of that Act (matters subject to investigation)—
(a) at the end of subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words—
"Provided that in respect of the Scottish Special Housing Association or a New Town Development Corporation the Commissioner may not investigate any complaint which does not relate to housing.";
(b) at the end of subsection (2) there shall be inserted the words—
"(c) notwithstanding the terms of paragraphs (a) and (b) above in the case of the Scottish Special Housing

523
Association or a New Town Development Corporation it is made in writing to the Scottish Special Housing Association or the New Town Development Corporation concerned and is referred by that body to the Commissioner with a request to investigate the complaint."; and
(c) in subsection (4) after the word "concerned" there shall be inserted the words "or in the case of the Scottish Special Housing Association or a New Town Development Corporation to that body".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the confident hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate is going to move Amendment No. 33,I shall not move this one.
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Clause 55 [Amendments of certain controls in relation to the provisions of pharmaceutical services]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 40, leave out from beginning of line 22 to ("persons") in line 29 and insert—
("55.—(1) Section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
(2) In subsection (2) of that section (which, amongst other things, provides as to the lists of persons who undertake to provide pharmaceutical services)—

(a) in paragraph (a), there shall be inserted at the end the words "and the premises in or from which these services are to be provided";

(b) in paragraph (b) —

(i) after the words "subject to" there shall be inserted the words "any provision made by or under the regulations, to";

(ii) after the word "practitioners" there shall be inserted the words "and to subsection (3)";

(iii) after the word "list" there shall be inserted the words "in respect of any premises"; and

(iv) after the word "supplying" there shall be inserted the words "in or from the premises";

(c)in paragraph (c), after the word "that", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words ", in or from such premises,".

(3) After the said subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsections—
"(3) Regulations may make the right referred to in subsection (2)(b) subject to the pharmacy practices committee's being satisfied that the provision of pharmaceutical services in or from the premises in respect of which a person wishes his name included in the list is necessary or desirable for securing adequate provision of such services in the locality of these premises.
(4) Regulations shall provide as to appeal from decisions of the pharmacy practices committee.
(5) The "pharmacy practices committee" referred to in subsections (3) and (4) is a committee of the Board which shall be constituted in accordance with regulations.".
(4) In section 28 of that Act.").
The noble and learned Lord said: In Committee I indicated that Clause 55 would bring Sections 27 and 28 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act into line with the corresponding legislation to that which had applied in England and Wales since 1980, thereby providing the Secretary of State for Scotland with the power to make regulations which included provisions modifying health boards' obligations to admit to their pharmaceutical lists every qualified person who applied for admission and the premises from which the services were to be supplied.
In Scotland, as in England and Wales, the Government have reached substantial agreement with
524
the representatives of the profession on a new contract for community pharmacists dispensing National Health Service prescriptions, but progress towards implementing the proposals cannot be completed until regulations are available authorising restriction on entry to health board pharmaceutical lists. Section 27 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act, as amended by Clause 55, is intended to provide the means for making regulations containing the necessary provisions.
Very recent consideration of the detailed legal position in England and Wales has indicated that the aspects of the new contract proposals relating to restrictions on entry to pharmaceutical lists to provide services could not be implemented without setting out more fully in primary legislation the powers to make such regulations. I consider it appropriate that, by means of this amendment, provisions should now be incorporated in the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 to enable further progress to be made on the introduction of the new contract proposals for community pharmacists in Scotland.
The provisions now sought do not differ in principle from those which Clause 55, as originally drafted, sought to achieve. The amendment to Section 27 does not in itself alter the right of a pharmacist to be included in a health board pharmaceutical list and thereby enter into a contract with the National Health Service. The amendment gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations which will regulate entry to a pharmaceutical list in certain circumstances. Regulations may make the right of a person to have his name and premises included in a health board's pharmaceutical list—in effect, a right to an NHS dispensing contract—subject to the board's pharmacy practice committee being satisfied that the granting of an application for inclusion in the list is necessary or desirable from the point of view of securing adequate provision of pharmaceutical services to the NHS in the locality of the proposed pharmacy in respect of which application is made. Clause 55(3) therefore provides for the establishment of pharmacy practices committees as committees of the health boards, for the pharmacy practices committees considering applications for inclusion in boards' pharmaceutical lists and for an appeals procedure in relation to decisions reached by the pharmacy practices committee.
Consideration is being given to the necessary detailed arrangements to give effect to the proposed new contract procedures for community pharmacists in Scotland. Aspects of these arrangements will require to be reflected in regulations, including regulations made in accordance with the provisions now sought in Clause 55. Any regulations will be laid before Parliament and will be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House.
In these circumstances, particularly since the Government attach importance to the new contract arrangements and since they will not only help the control of costs in the National Health Service dispensing service but will also help to ensure that additional pharmaceutical services are provided where they are necessary or desirable for the needs of patient care, I commend the amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 33:
After Clause 55, insert the following new clause:
("Power of Commissioner for Local Administration to investigate Scottish Special Housing Association and new town development corporations.
—(1) In section 23 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 (authorities subject to investigation)—

(a) in subsection (1) there shall be added at the end the words—

"(g) the Scottish Special Housing Association;

(h) subject to subsection (2A) below, any development corporation established under an order made, or having effect as if made under the New Towns (Scotland) Act 1968 (in this section and section 24 of this Act referred to as a "new town development corporation");"; and

(b) after subsection (2) there shall be added the following subsection—

"(2A) The application of this Part of this Act to any new town development corporation by virtue of subsection (1)(h) above extends only to the Corporation's functions in relation to housing.".

(2) In section 24 of that Act (matters subject to investigation)—

(a) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(3A) Subsections (2) and (3) above do not apply in relation to the Scottish Special Housing Association or a new town development corporation."; and

(b) in subsection (4) after the word "concerned" there shall be inserted the words "or, in the case of the Scottish Special Housing Association or a new town development corporation, to the Commissioner".").

The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I do not propose to speak at any length on this amendment since the matter was comprehensively discussed at an earlier stage. I promised to bring forward, if I could, an alternative to the new clause then moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morton of Shuna. The difference between that amendment and the present one in my name, apart from matters of drafting, is that originally the amendment proposed by the noble Lord involved the referral of complaints to the commissioner by the body complained against, whereas the present amendment allows complaints to be made direct to the commissioner. I should say that the commissioner himself is in favour of direct access and I believe this would generally be regarded as an improvement on what was originally before the House. With my consideration of the noble Lord's amendment I commend my amendment to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Morton of Shuna: My Lords, yet again I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate for taking on board my amendment and making the wording of it more appropriate. Considering that it was given as an undertaking by the Secretary of State some years ago it seems strange that it has taken until the Report stage in this House before it has come forward. Nonetheless, it is welcome for all that.
Lord Kirkhill: My Lords, I want merely to say that I too welcome the new amendment brought forward today by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. I express my support for the remarks just made by my noble friend Lord Morton of Shuna. As I said at an earlier stage in our deliberations, I think it is important that this significant change to the Bill should be made; and speaking personally I am pleased
526
that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate has taken the numerous points on board.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Amendment of enactments relating to solicitors]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 34:
Leave out Clause 56 and insert the following new clause
("Amendment of enactments relating to solicitors.
56. The enactments specified in Schedule I to this Act (Part I of which Schedule contains amendments relating to the incorporation of solicitors' practices and Part II amendments relating to other matters relating to solicitors) shall have effect subject to the amendments to these enactments there set out.".).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it would be for the convenience of the House if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 36, 37 and 41.
Amendment No. 36: Schedule 1, page 43, line 2, at end insert—

PART I INCORPORATION OF SOLICITORS' PRACTICES
Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 c. 46
I. In section 16(1) (appeal to Court of Session against decisions of Council in relation to practising certificates)—

(a) after the word "where" there shall be inserted "(a)".and

(b) after the word "applicant" there shall be inserted ".

(b) the Council refuse to recognise a body corporate as being suitable in terms of section 34(1A)(b), the body corporate".

2. In section 18 (suspension of practising certificates)—

(a) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) If—

(a) an administration or winding up order, or an appointment of a provisional liquidator, liquidator, receiver or judicial factor has been made in relation to the incorporated practice; or

(b) a resolution has been passed for the voluntary winding-up of an incorporated practice (other than a resolution passed solely for the purposes of reconstruction or amalgamation of the incorporated practice),

the recognition under section 34(1A) of the incorporated practice shall be thereby revoked.";
(b) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(3A) On the occurrence of the circumstances mentioned in—

(a) paragraph (a) of subsection (1A), the administrator, provisional liquidator, liquidator, receiver or, as the case may be, judicial factor appointed in relation to the incorporated practice;

(b) paragraph (b) of subsection (1A), the incorporated practice

shall immediately intimate that fact to the Council.".
3. In section 21(3) (definition of "consultant" in relation to requirement upon consultants to hold practising certificates)—

(a) after the word "who" there shall be inserted "(a)":

(b) after the word "name", where thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted—

"(b) not being a director of an incorporated practice, causes or permits his name to be associated with that incorporated practice,".
4. In section 26 (offence for solicitors to act as agents for unqualified persons)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after the word "who" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice which";

(ii) in each of paragraphs (b) and (d) after the word "his" there shall be inserted "or, as the case may be, its";

(b) in subsection (3) there shall be inserted at the end the words "but "unqualified person" does not include an incorporated practice".

5. In section 27 (offence for solicitors to share fees with unqualified person)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

(ii) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

(ii) in paragraph (a) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, to it" and after the word "business", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or former director of the incorporated practice";

(iii) in paragraph (b), after the word "business", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, a director or member of the incorporated practice" and after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

(iv) in paragraph (c) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

6. In section 28 (disqualified solicitors not to seek employment without informing employer)—

(a) after the word "practice" where thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or by an incorporated practice";

(b) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

7. In section 30 (liability for fees of another solicitor)—

(a) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

(b) after that word, where secondly and thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

(c) after the word "he" in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

(d) after the word "solicitor's" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice's".

8. Section 31 (offence for unqualified persons to pretend to be solicitors or notaries public) shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section and—

(a) in that subsection (as so renumbered) there shall be inserted at the end the following—

"In this section, "unqualified person" does not include an incorporated practice";

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

"(2) Any person (including a body corporate) who either by himself or together with others, wilfully and falsely—

(a) pretends to be an incorporated practice;

(b) takes or uses any name, title, addition or description implying that he is an incorporated practice, shall be guilty of an offence.

(3) Where an offence under this section which has been committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, the director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate shall be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.".
9. In section 32(2) (persons to whom offence of preparing certain documents does not apply) there shall be inserted at the end the following—"; or
(e) an incorporated practice.".
10. In section 33 (unqualified persons not entitled to fees etc.) there shall be inserted at the end—
"This section does not apply to an incorporated practice.".
11. After section 33 there shall be inserted the following section—
"Privilege of incorporated practices from disclosure etc.
33A.—(1) Any communication made to or by an incorporated practice in the course of its acting as such for a client shall
528
in any legal proceedings be privileged from disclosure in like manner as if the body had at all material times been a solicitor acting for the client.
(2) Any enactment or instrument making special provision in relation to a solicitor or other legal representative as to the disclosure of information, or as to the production, seizure or removal of documents, with respect to which a claim to professional privilege could be maintained shall, with any necessary modifications, have effect in relation to an incorporated practice as it has effect in relation to a solicitor.".
12. In section 34 (rules as to professional practice, conduct and discipline)—

(a) in subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices";

(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(1A) Rules made under this section may—

(a) provide as to the management and control by—

(i) solicitors holding practising certificates or their executors;

(ii) other incorporated practices of bodies corporate carrying on businesses consisting of the provision of professional services such as are provided by individuals and firms practising as solicitors being bodies the membership of which is restricted to such solicitors, executors and other incorporated practices;

(b) prescribe the circumstances in which such bodies may be recognised by the Council as being suitable to undertake the provision of any such services;

(c) prescribe the conditions which (subject to any exceptions provided by the rules) must at all times be satisfied by bodies corporate so recognised if they are to remain so recognised (which bodies, when and for so long as so recognised, are in this Act referred to as "incorporated practices");

(d) regulate the conduct of the affairs of incorporated practices; and

(e) provide—

(i) for the manner and form in which applications for recognition under this section are to be made, and for the payment of fees in connection with such applications;

(ii) for regulating the names that may be used by incorporated practices;

(iii) as to the period for which any recognition granted under this section shall (subject to the provisions of this Act) remain in force;

(iv) for the revocation of any such recognition on the grounds that it was granted as a result of any error or fraud;

(v) for the keeping by the Society of a list containing the names and places of business of all incorporated practices and for the information contained in any such list to be available for inspection;

(vi) for rules made under any provision of this Act to have effect in relation to incorporated practices with such additions, omissions or other modifications as appear to the Council to be necessary or expedient;

(vii) for empowering the Council to take such steps as they consider necessary or expedient to ascertain whether or not any rules applicable to incorporated practices by virtue of this section are being complied with.

(c) after subsection (4) there shall be inserted the following subsections—

"(4A) A certificate purporting to be signed by an officer of the Society and stating that any body corporate is or is not an incorporated practice shall, unless the contrary is proved, be sufficient evidence of that fact.

(4B) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Secretary of State may, by order made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, provide for any enactment or instrument passed or made before the commencement of section (1A) above and having effect in relation to solicitors to have effect in relation to incorporated practices with such additions, omissions, or other modifications as appear to him to be necessary or expedient.".

13. In section 35(1) (accounts rules) after the word "solicitors", in each place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices".
14. In section 36 (interest on client's money)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

(ii) after the word "his" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice in its";

(iii) after the word "solicitor's" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice's";

(b) in subsection (2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

(c) in subsection (3)—

(i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

(ii) after the word "solicitor", where lastly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

(iii) after the word "his" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, its";

(d) in subsection (4) after the word "client" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice and its client".

15. In section 37 (accountant's certificates)—

(a) in subsection (2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practice";

(b) in subsection (3) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or of an incorporated practice";

(c) in subsection (5)—

(i) in paragraph (a) after the word "who" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice which", after the word "firm" there shall be substituted the words "or, as the case may be, of the incorporated practice" and after the word "them" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

(ii) in paragraph (b), after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice" and after the word "practice" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it has not";

(d) in subsection (6)—

(i) in paragraph (a)(iii) after the word "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practices";

(ii) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, an incorporated practice which satisfies the Council that it";

(e) in subsection (7)—

(i) after the word "solicitor", there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

(ii) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

16. In section 38 (powers of Council where dishonesty alleged)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after the word "his", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice or any employee thereof;

(ii) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, such incorporated practice";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (a), there shall be inserted at the end the words "or, as the case may be, such incorporated practice";

(ii) in paragraph (b), there shall be inserted at the end the words "or, as the case may be, of which the incorporated practice or one of its employees is a sole trustee or it is a co-trustee only with one or more of it employees.".

17. In section 39 (Council's powers where delay alleged)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

(ii) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

(iii) after the word "employees" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice or one of its employees was the sole trustee or it was a co-trustee only with one or more of its employees";

530

(iv) after the word "solicitor" where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) after the word "solicitor", where first and lastly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

(ii) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

(iii) after the word "firm" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, to that incorporated practice.".

18. In section 40 (Council's powers where failure to comply with accounts rules etc.)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

(ii) after the word "solicitor", where secondly and thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

(iii) after the word "his" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, its";

(iv) after the word "section", where lastly occurring, there shall be inserted "(a)";

(v) for the words "and the certificate" there shall be substituted the following "; or, as the case may be—

(b) withdraw the practising certificate or certificates of any or all of the solicitors who are directors of the incorporated practice, and a certificate so withdrawn";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice that it";

(ii) after the word "solicitor" where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

(iii) for the words from "and" onward there shall be substituted the words "or solicitors concerned and shall restore to him or them any practising certificate or certificates held by him or them for the practice year then current.".

(c) in subsection (3) for the word "the", where secondly occurring, there shall be substituted the word "a"

19. In section 41 (appointment of judicial factor)—

(a) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

(b) after the word "solicitor" where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

(c) for the words "in connection with his practice as a solicitor" there shall be substituted the words ", in the case of a solicitor, in connection with his practice as such".

(d) after the word "arise" there shall be inserted the following "; or

(c) that, in the case of an incorporated practice, either—

(i) its liabilities exceed its assets, or

(ii) its books, accounts and other documents are in such a condition that it is not reasonably practicable to ascertain definitely whether its liabilities exceed its assets, or

(iii) there is reasonable ground for apprehending that a claim on the guarantee fund may arise";

(e) after the word "solicitor", where fourthly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, of the incorporated practice";

(f) after the word "solicitor", where fifthly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

(g) for the words "the solicitor's" there shall be substituted the word "such".

20. In section 42 (distribution of sums in client bank account)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after the word "(2)" there shall be inserted the words "or (2A)";

(ii) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

(iii) after the word "him", where first and thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it";

531

(iv) after the word "clients", where firstly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it on behalf of its clients";

(v) After the word "solicitor", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice";

(vi) after the word "behalf, where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by it on their behalf;

(vii) after the word "him", where lastly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by if;

(b) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) The events to which subsection (1) applies are in relation to any incorporated practice—

(a) the making of an administration or winding up order or the appointment of a provisional liquidator, liquidator, receiver or judicial factor; or

(b) the passing of a resolution for voluntary winding-up (other than one passed solely for the purposes of reconstruction or amalgamation with another incorporated practice)";

(c) in subsection (3)—

(i) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring there shall be inserted the words "as an incorporated practice";

(ii) after the word "his", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, its";

(iii) after the word "client", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice on that behalf;

(iv) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by if;

(v) after the word "name" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, by the incorporated practice in its own name".

21. In section 43 (Guarantee Fund)—

(a) in subsection (2) after the words "part of there shall be inserted "(a)" and at the end there shall be inserted "; or

(b) any incorporated practice or any director, manager, secretary or other employee of an incorporated practice, notwithstanding that subsequent to the commission of that act it may have ceased to be recognised under section 34(1A) or have been wound up";

(c) in subsection (3), after paragraph (c), there shall be added the following—

"(cc) to an incorporated practice or any director or member thereof in respect of a loss suffered by it or him by reason of dishonesty on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other employee of the incorporated practice in connection with the practice";

(d) in subsection (7)(c) there shall be inserted at the end the following "or in the employment of an incorporated practice".

22. In section 44 (professional indemnity)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after the word "solicitors", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices";

(ii) in paragraph (c) after the word "solicitors", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices or any specified class thereof;

(b) in subsection (3)—

(i) in each paragraph (b) and (c) after the word "solicitors", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices or any class of incorporated practices";

(ii) in paragraph (f) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice" and after each of the words "he" and "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, if;

(iii) in paragraph (g) after the word "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices";

(c) in subsection (5) there shall be inserted at the end the words "and, as respects incorporated practices, means any liability incurred by it which if it had been incurred by a solicitor would constitute such civil liability";

23. In section 45 (safeguarding interests of clients of solicitors struck off or suspended)—

(a) in subsection (1) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and, in relation to any incorporated practice, the recognition under section 34(1A) of which is revoked";

532

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) at the beginning there shall be inserted the words "In the case of a solicitor,";

(ii) after the words "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

(c) after subsection (2) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) In the case of an incorporated practice, it shall within 21 days of the material date satisfy the Council that it has made suitable arrangements for making available to its clients or to some other solicitor or solicitors or incorporated practice instructed by its clients or itself—

(a) all deeds, wills, securities, papers, books of accounts, records, vouchers and other documents in its possession or control which are held on behalf of its clients or which relate to any trust of which it is sole trustee or co-trustee only with one or more of its employees; and

(b) all sums of money due from it or held by it on behalf of its clients or subject to any trust as aforesaid.";

(d) in subsection (3)—

(i) after the word "solicitor" in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

(ii) after the word "he" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, any director, manager, secretary or other employee of the incorporated practice";

(e) in subsection (5), after the word "practice" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the recognition under section 34(1A) is revoked.".

24. In section 47 (restriction on employing solicitor struck off or suspended)—

(a) in subsection (1)—

(i) after the word "solicitor", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and, unless it has such permission, an incorporated practice shall not";

(ii) after the word "his", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, its";

(b) in subsection (3) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, incorporated practice";

(c) in subsection (4) at the end there shall be inserted the words "and if any incorporated practice so acts its recognition under section 34(1A) shall be revoked.".

25. In section 49 (investigation by lay observer of Society's treatment of complaints), in subsection (1) after the word "solicitor", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or about an incorporated practice or an employee thereof.
26. In section 51(2) (complaints to Discipline Tribunal) after the words "client)" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice may have failed to comply with any provision of this Act or of rules made under this Act applicable to if.
27. In section 52(1) (procedure and powers of Discipline Tribunal) there shall be inserted at the end the words "or an incorporated practice".
28. In section 53 (powers of Discipline Tribunal)—

(a) in subsection (1) there shall be inserted at the end— "; or

(c) an incorporated practice has been convicted by any court of an offence, which conviction the Tribunal is satisfied renders it unsuitable to continue to be recognised under section 34(1A); or

(d) after holding an inquiry into a complaint, the Tribunal is satisfied that an incorporated practice has failed to comply with any provision of this Act or of rules made under this Act applicable to it.".

(b) in subsection (2) (powers of Discipline Tribunal)—

(i) in paragraphs (c) and (d) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice".

(ii) in paragraph (e) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it".

(iii) after paragraph (e) there shall be added the following—"or

(f) order that the recognition under section 34(1A) of the incorporated practice be revoked".

533

(c) after subsection (6) (effective date of striking off or suspension of solicitor) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(6A) Where the Tribunal order that the recognition under section 34(1A) of an incorporated practice be revoked, the Tribunal shall direct that the order shall take effect on such date as the Tribunal specifies, being a date not earlier than 60 days after its order is intimated to the incorporated practice, and such an order shall take effect accordingly.".

(d) in subsection (7) after the word "(6)" there shall be inserted the words "or (6A)" and for the words "that subsection" there shall be substituted the words "subsection (6) or, as the case may be, subsection (6A)".

29. In section 54 (appeals by solicitors from decisions of the Discipline Tribunal)—

(a) in subsection (1) for the word "him" there shall be substituted the words "that person";

(b) in subsection (2)—

(i) after the word "Where" there shall be inserted "(a)";

(ii) after the word "effect", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted—

(b) the Tribunal has ordered the revocation of the recognition under section 34(1A) of an incorporated practice, the incorporated practice may within 21 days of the date when the order is intimated to it apply to the court for an order varying (subject to the limit of 60 days referred to in subsection (6A) of section 53) the direction under that subsection;"

30. In section 60 (offence for notaries public to act for unqualified persons) in subsection (2) there shall be inserted at the end the words "but "unqualified person" does not include an incorporated practice".
31. In section 61 (protection of banks)—

(a) in each of subsections (1) and (2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

(b) in subsection (3) after the word "solicitor", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice" and after that word, where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, the incorporated practice".

32. In section 64 (service of notices) there shall be inserted at the end the words "or, in the case of an incorporated practice, if it is left at, or delivered or sent by post to, its registered office".
33. In section 65(1) (interpretation) after the definition of "functions" there shall be inserted the following—
"incorporated practice" has the meaning given by section 34(lA)(c);"
34. In Schedule 3 (The Scottish Solicitors' Guarantee Fund)—

(a) in paragraph 1—

(i) after sub-paragraph (2) there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraphs—

"(2A) Sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to solicitors who are directors of incorporated practices.

(2B) Subject to the provisions of this Act, there shall be paid to the Society on behalf of the Guarantee Fund by every incorporated practice in respect of each year during which, or part of which, it is recognised under section 34(1 A) a contribution (hereafter referred to as an "annual corporate contribution") in accordance with the scale of such contributions referred to in subparagraph (3).

(ii) in sub-paragraph (3) there shall be inserted at the end the words "and the scale of the annual corporate contributions to be so paid, which scale shall be fixed by reference to factors which shall include the number of solicitors who are directors or employees of each of the incorporated practices to which the scale relates.";

(iii) in sub-paragraph (4) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "and no annual corporate contribution by an incorporated practice ";

(iv) in sub-paragraph (5) for the words "a special", where secondly occurring, there shall be substituted the words "upon every incorporated practice a contribution (hereafter referred to as a "special corporate contribution") in accordance with a scale of such contributions fixed by the Council as under sub-paragraph (3), and a special or special corporate";

534

(v) in paragraph 1(8) after the word "solicitors" there shall be inserted the words "or of an incorporated practice";

(b) in paragraph 3(2), after the word "solicitors", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and incorporated practices" and after that word, where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice or practices";

(c) in paragraph 4(2) after the word "employee" there shall be inserted the words "or the incorporated practice in question or its employee";

(d) in paragraph 5(2) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice".

35. In Schedule 4 (constitution, procedure and powers of Tribunal)—

(a) in paragraph 9—

(i) after the word "solicitor", where first and secondly occurring, there shall be inserted respectively the words "or an incorporated practice" and "or the incorporated practice"; and

(ii) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or, as the case may be, it";

(iii) after the word "solicitor" where thirdly and lastly occurring there shall be inserted, in each case, the words "or, of failure on the part of the incorporated practice to comply with any provision of this Act or of rules made under this Act";

(b) in paragraph 10 (duty of Discipline Tribunal to give respondent solicitor notice of complaint)—

(i) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or incorporated practice";

(ii) after the words "him"; and "his" there shall be inserted respectively the words "or, as the case may be, it" and "or, as the case may be, its".

(c) In paragraph 16—

(i) in each of paragraphs (c) and (d) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "or an incorporated practice";

(ii) after paragraph (d) there shall be added-"or

(e) order that the recognition under section 34(1A) of an incorporated practice be revoked";

(iii) for "(d)" where secondly occurring, there shall be substituted "(e)";

(iv) after the word "court", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or under section 53(6A) which has not been carried by the court";

(v) after the word "roll", where secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or as to revoking the recognition under section 34(1A) of an incorporated practice".

Building Societies Act 1962 (c. 37)
36. In section 34(4) (restriction on commissions for introduction of business) after the word "solicitor" there shall be inserted the words "(including that of an incorporated practice within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980)".
Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 43)
37. In section 6(3)(a) (exclusion of certain solicitors from giving legal aid) the word "or" immediately preceding subparagraph (iii) shall be omitted and after that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following—
"or
(iv) in the case of a director of an incorporated practice, such conduct on the part of any person who is for the time being a director of the incorporated practice.".
Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 (c. 10)
38. In sections 481(3) and 490(3) (savings for solicitors in relation to certain requirements to furnish information to Inland Revenue) any reference to a solicitor shall include a reference to an incorporated practice within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 and any reference to a solicitor's client shall, in relation to a solicitor who is a director, manager, secretary or employee of such a practice, be construed as a reference to a client of that practice.
Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972 (c. 50)
39. In section 5(2) (definition of "the solicitor" for purposes of rules relating to payment of certain charges or fees), after the word "solicitors", where first occurring, there shall be inserted the words "or by an incorporated practice (within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980") and after that word. where

535
secondly occurring, there shall be inserted the words ", incorporated practice".
Estate Agents Act 1979 (c. 38)
40. In section l(2)(a) (disapplication of Act to practising solicitors and their employees) after the word "him" there shall be inserted the words "or by an incorporated practice (within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980) or a person employed by it".
Finance Act 1980 (c. 48)
41. In section 30(5) (saving for solicitors in relation to requirement to furnish certain information to Inland Revenue) any reference to a solicitor shall include a reference to an incorporated practice and any reference to a solicitor's client shall, in relation to a solicitor who is a director, manager, secretary or employee of an incorporated practice within the meaning of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980, be construed as a reference to a client of that practice.
Part II")
Amendment No. 37: Page 43, line 41, after ("solicitor") insert ("or incorporated practice").
Amendment No. 41: In the Title, line 4, after ("children;") insert ("solicitors;").
These are amendments of which I gave advance notice on Second Reading. They are essentially simple. They permit Scottish solicitors to incorporate themselves into companies under the Companies Act, instead of being able to practice only as individuals or in partnership. Similar provision has already been made for English solicitors in the Administration of Justice Bill in another place and these present amendments have the support of the Law Society of Scotland.
Noble Lords may wonder why such an apparantly simple change requires such lengthy amendments. This is because it seemed sensible to go through each provision of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980 making clear to what extent it is to apply to the new incorporated practices. We have also decided to proceed by amending the 1980 Act rather than producing separate, free-standing provisions, so that almost all provisions on Scottish solicitors will be found in a single Act. The 1980 Act will of course be reprinted with the amendments in Statutes in Force and will also be easily available in its revised form to Scottish practitioners in the Parliament House Book. Because of the length of the provisions an amendment has been tabled to include a reference to solicitors in the Long Title.
In brief, the amendments provide that the incorporated practices, although not themselves solicitors, will in general be able to do the things which a solicitor can, other of course than such things as appearing in court which by their nature require an individual. The shareholders and directors of the incorporated practices will generally have to be practising solicitors and will therefore be persons who are subject to professional discipline as individuals. It will be an offence to pretend to be an incorporated practice as it is at present to pretend to be a qualified solicitor. Incorporated practices will be subject to the same disciplinary procedures and rules, with some modification, on such matters as accounts, as are individual solicitors. They will also have to contribute to the Scottish Solicitors Guarantee Fund and to be covered by indemnity insurance. There will therefore be no diminution in the protection afforded to solicitors' clients whose interests the Government and
536
the Law Society agree must remain paramount. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 35:
[Printed earlier: col. 518.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I think I spoke to this amendment along with Amendment No. 23. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 35):
Page 41, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) Schedule (Transitional provisions) to this Act shall have effect for the purpose of making transitional provision.").
Schedule 1 [Amendments of Legal Aid and Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1949 and Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 36:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 37:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendment of enactments]:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 38:
[Printed earlier: col. 504.]
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment when speaking to Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 38):
Page 45, line 25, at end insert—
("Titles to Land Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1868 (c. 101)
. In section 159 (litigiosity not to begin before date of registration in Register of Inhibitions and Adjudications of notice of summons) after the word "summons", where thirdly occurring, there shall be inserted the words "and contain a description of the lands to which the summons relates".
. In Schedule RR (form of notice of summons) after the word "signeting" there shall be inserted the words "The summons relates to [insert description of lands].".").
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 39:
[Printed earlier: col. 518.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 39):
After Schedule 2, insert the following Schedule—

SCHEDULE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS
Section 36
1. Sections 141 A, 141B, 346A and 346B of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 do not apply in relation to a trial which has commenced before the coming into force of those

537
sections; and, for the purposes of this paragraph, a trial shall be taken to commence—

(a) in the case of solemn proceedings, when the oath is administered to the jury;

(b) in the case of summary proceedings, when the first witness is sworn.

Section 38
2. The amendment to section 120 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 effected by section 38 of this Act has no effect in relation to proceedings in which the complaint was served on the accused before the coming into force of section 38 of this Act.
Section 39
3.Section 193Bof the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 shall not affect the punishment for an offence committed before the coming into force of section 39 of this Act.
4. The amendments to section 407(1A) of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 effected by section 40 of this Act have no effect in relation to fines imposed in respect of offences committed before the coming into force of section 40 of this Act.").
In the Title:
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved Amendment No. 40:
Line 4, after ("children") insert ("the functions of the Commissioner for Local Administration;").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 33 in relation to the additional duties which would fall upon the Commissioner for Local Administration. In the same way as with the solicitors, it is necessary to amend the title of the Bill in order to make conclusion of that. I therefore beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom Lord Cameron of Lochbroom moved amendment No. 41:
[Printed earlier: col. 535.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Following is the text of the amendment (No. 41):
Line 4, after ("children;") insert ("solicitors;").

Electricity Generation: Thermo-Nuclear Fusion
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough The Earl of Bessborough rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how far advanced is scientific investigation into possibilities for the application of thermo-nuclear fusion to the generation of electricity in Europe and elsewhere.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it must be some 40 to 50 years since nuclear-fusion first came to be studied in the East and the West, and indeed some 20 years since I personally became concerned with high energy nuclear and plasma physics when I was Parliamentary Secretary for Science with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who was then Lord President of the Council and Minister for Science. It was then that I visited CERN, which is the European Centre for Nuclear Research, at Geneva, and I must say that some of our most senior official and scientific advisers had some doubts about the ultimate applications of this highly important
538
European basic research. I remember saying to myself, "Yes, isolating the elusive neutrino, but then what next?"
I have no such doubts about the joint European Torus, the JET, the project which is so admirably described in brochures which are issued by the Joint Euratom Undertaking at Culham near Abingdon. The main brochure is entitled, "Energy for the Twenty-First Century". I am very glad that this evening we have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, to make his maiden speech. I cannot imagine anyone who would be more appropriate than the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, to take part in this debate, and I am very glad that he managed to get back from Canada in time to do so.
In so far as the application of fusion to the generation of electricity is concerned, I have been more precisely interested for at least ten years, ever since the 1970s when I was energy spokesman in the European Parliament and urging that the JET should, owing to our unique expertise in Britain, be situated at Culham rather than perhaps at Cadarache in France, Garching or Karlsruhe in Germany or Ispra or Padua in Italy, though, as I understand it, research of this kind nonetheless continues in those places as in others, and the next European tokamak, the NET, might well be situated in one of those places on the continent. But I should add here that the siting of JET in Britain has considerably benefited British firms and I hope that my noble friend Lord Torrington, whom I see here tonight, may expand on this.
Had the Council of the European Communities not decided in 1977 on the siting at Culham, I believe that the "brain-drain" of nuclear and plasma physicists from Europe and particularly from Britain would—certainly my American friends confirm this—have been quite considerable.
In 1979 I represented the European Parliament at the laying of the foundation stone of the JET complex at Culham by Guido Brunner who was then the EEC Energy Commissioner. This centre, which was finally opened in April 1984 by Her Majesty the Qeeen, accompanied by President Mitterand, who was representing the presidency of the European Communities, has been hailed as the most ambitious project ever undertaken jointly by European Community countries. I particularly regret that my noble friend Lady Elles, who attended this prestigious opening and who is one of my successors as British Vice-President of the European Parliament, is not able to speak this evening owing to meetings on the continent, but I know that she would have liked to have done so. However, we look forward to what she will have to say on European union next week on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, whom I am also glad to see here this evening.
I visited the JET again at Culham very recently and spent some hours with Dr. Pease, the AEA Fusion Programme Director, and his colleagues, to all of whom I am most grateful for the information which they gave me. At the same time I was most distressed to learn of the passing of its director, Dr. Wüster. I think we should pay a tribute to the contribution that he has made in building up this highly useful research facility and in creating a team of scientists and

539
engineers, which is a very important human asset for Europe and which I believe is unique in the world. Dr. Wüster is a great loss to this enterprise. At the same time we must welcome the new Director of JET, Dr. Rebut, a most distinguished French scientist who has been concerned for many years with nuclear and plasma physics.
The JET, as most of your Lordships probably know, is an attempt to find out how to harness the massive energy released by nuclear fusion—that is to say, instead of splitting atoms (which is known as fission), merging them together (which is known as fusion). To achieve that, the atoms have to be heated to extremely high temperatures. The medium used is an ionized gas or plasma, which has to be made so hot that it would normally melt any apparatus that was built to hold it. In the case of the JET experiment at Culham, the gas is not held by any solid object but by a magnetic field which holds it away from the doughnut-shaped machine in which the gas whizzes round.
Producing energy by magnetic fusion would cause very much less radioactivity than nuclear fission, and the basic raw material would be sea-water, which will provide one of the two basic materials, deuterium. The other fuel sources would be lithium, from which tritium would be bred. Lithium is a very abundant element occurring widely, though usually in low concentrations. Controlled thermo-nuclear fusion could thus provide a cleaner and virtually infinite method of generating electricity which is safe, economical and environmentally acceptable.
At present it is true that there is no imminent energy crisis. Some may say that we have abundant coal and oil in the world, but others believe that oil could run out in Saudi Arabia and the North Sea early next century, only 15 years on, and coal, although abundant in Britain, has, as we know, its own problems. Also, other European member states are not so favoured as we in Britain are in this respect. In any case, coal, oil and gas are finite energy sources compared with hydrogen from the sea, which can be considered as infinite.
I recognise of course that in Europe (including Britain) advanced gas-cooled reactors and pressurised water reactors are now making an important contribution as an energy source, and that fast-breeder reactors may do so too. However, in my view, in the long term we must recognise that we may well need fusion as an environmentally acceptable option or alternative energy source. As well as present and future Community member states, Sweden and Switzerland also participate in this successful and important European research project.
At the same time a great deal of work has been going on elsewhere in the world. It was in fact the Russians who developed the first tokamak. The word is Russian for toroidal magnetic chamber. They developed the first tokamak in 1950, but that was from an idea first conceived and patented by Sir George Thompson in 1946. How far the Russians have maintained their lead I do not know. Perhaps my noble friend may have some information on that point.
Meanwhile the Americans at the Plasma Physics Laboratory in Princeton, which I have visited twice,
540
and at the Laurence Livermore Laboratory in California, at Oakridge in Tennessee, at Los Alamos and indeed at MIT, as well as the Japanese at Tokaimura, have been pursuing similar research, as have, I believe, for some time also the Chinese.
Nor should we forget the work of the International Atomic Energy Authority at INTOR, which is the International Tokamak Workshop in Vienna. I should be interested to know how far my noble friend thinks that those countries, including the IAEA in Vienna and the OECD International Energy Agency in Paris, have progressed in their studies and researches, and what the prospects for co-ordinated international fusion research could be within the ambit of the IAEA.
At Princeton I have been most grateful on both occasions to its director, Dr. Harold Furth, for spending time showing myself and Dr. Cox, the Science and Technology Counsellor at our embassy in Washington, round his establishment and frankly discussing his problems with us. Dr. Cox and I were both impressed not only by the Tokamak Fusion Test Reactor (the TFTR) and their Spheromak but also by their work on lasers, which not only may have an essential role to play in igniting the deuterium-tritium fuel but may also have applications in the strategic defence initiative or star wars programme in the United States.
Already in the first two years of the JET experiment at Culham the current in the plasma has been raised to a record 5 million amperes and the confinement time of nearly one second has been achieved. I believe that in both those respects the JET is more than twice as advanced as its nearest rival, the test reactor at Princeton, which, as I understand it, has nonetheless achieved at least 100 million degrees Celsius for one-third of a second. The European JET is now starting the critical phase of attempting to heat the plasma to high temperatures, which will take several years to complete to the point when deuterium and tritium can be introduced and significant thermo-nuclear power demonstrated.
I should be interested to know whether my noble friend is able to confirm that, and also how long he thinks it will be before we achieve what the Americans describe as break-even conditions and what I might describe, in one alternative, as magneto-hydrodynamic stability. I apologise for the length of the word magneto-hydrodynamic!
I should also be grateful to my noble friend if he could tell us something about international co-operation. From my visits to Princeton I understand that as a result of generally reduced United States Government funding—apart from research on lasers which may have SDI applications—there is a desire for increased co-operation with colleagues in Japan and Europe, especially when it comes to the next machine, more advanced than JET or the test reactor at Princeton.
In so far as co-operation in the West is concerned, I see that a panel of senior tokamak scientists and engineers from the United States, Canada, Europe and Japan conducted an assessment of the Ignition Design Point Workshop at MIT in June this year and that this panel concluded that the present database was sufficient to guide the conceptual design of a tokamak

541
ignition experiment which could provide unique and highly useful information.
In my view, fusion research must be pressed to a successful conclusion even if it may have cost participating countries—or shall I say atomic energy authorities?—some £600 million in the 12 years from 1978 to 1990.
My noble friend Lord Gray may also like to comment on other fusion systems or ideas, not only magnetic but also, for example, the study of Stellarators now being carried out by the Max Planck Institute at Garching and what is known as reverse-field-pinch, which is being studied jointly by Culham and Padua. Then of course there are the large mirror machines which the University of California plans to operate in the late 1980s and the studies of inertial confinement using pulsed laser and particle beams.
There has been co-operation also, but I shall not go into it this evening, between the United States and the Soviet Union on fusion-fission hybrid reactor studies. But I am not at all certain—and my noble friend knows what I think about this—that this is as applicable in Europe as it might be in the Soviet Union.
I am very glad that earlier this year my honourable friend Mr. Goodlad, the Under-Secretary of State for Energy, said in another place that a substantial British fusion programme would be maintained even if, as in the United States, there has been some cutback in funding.
From a physics point of view there is no doubt that the research so far undertaken at Culham has been a success and that from the engineering point of view the project must not fail. I hope therefore that Community Governments, including our own, will do everything in their power to encourage and facilitate this research. My Lords, I beg to ask my Question.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Marshall of Goring: My Lords, may I ask your indulgence for a maiden speech in which I would first like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for giving us the opportunity to debate an important subject? The fusion research programme of the world scientific community is a great adventure story. It is an attempt to tame the hydrogen bomb for the benefit of mankind. It is therefore an attempt on a massive scale to beat swords into ploughshares, and surely all of us must welcome that with enthusiasm. However, that enthusiasm must be tempered with judgment and with realism. We will hinder, not help, this international effort if our optimism is unrestrained and we ignore the real technical problems facing the project.
In this work on fusion, it is first necessary to build an ingenious device of one type or another which is large and complex and which, by means of electric current, creates a magnetic bottle in which to hold a high temperature plasma, which is just like the plasma in the sun. Creating that magnetic bottle requires energy in the form of electricity. Then we must both compress and purify the plasma, and that requires still more energy. Following that, we must heat the plasma by laser beams, by particle beams or by some other ingenious device. Once again, that requires energy. Therefore, in any thermo-nuclear device, we must first expend a great deal of energy in the device as a whole
542
to get a small fraction of that energy into the plasma itself. We must then hope that the energy in the plasma is sufficient to initiate a thermo-nuclear reaction so as to get back more energy than we used in the first place.
In the JET project as presently designed we have good reason to suppose that we will get a thermonuclear reaction which will give us thermo-nuclear energy but probably not enough to match the energy we will have put into the plasma itself It is conceivable, however, that an extension of the JET project, which I would commend to you, would give an improved thermo-nuclear reaction. We might then get more energy out of the plasma than we put into the plasma. But we would still have less thermo-nuclear energy created than electrical energy put into the device as a whole. If all goes well, we should reach this stage before the turn of the century.
Beyond that stage, we will need some new machine to make progress. And let us hope that that new machine is built by international effort even wider than that of Europe. It would be wonderful, and a real possibility, if that could be a joint effort between the United States, the USSR, Europe and Japan. That new machine, which might be operational in the first decade of the next century, might well produce more thermo-nuclear energy than the electrical energy we have put into the device as a whole.
Beyond that again, if all goes well, we might hope for a still larger and more complex machine in which the thermo-nuclear energy is converted to electricity. Then, for the first time, we might get more electricity out of the device than the electricity we have put into it. It is my best judgment that we will not reach that stage until well into the next century unless we get a chance to leapfrog one of the steps I have described to you. We will then have established by these successive steps that we can get more energy out of the plasma than we put into the plasma; that we can get more energy out of the plasma than we put into the entire device; and, finally, that we can get more electricity out of the whole device than we have put into it. Then, and only then, we can address the most crucial and important question of all. Can we get more money out of the device than we have put into it? In other words, can fusion be economic?
I must admit to you, my Lords, that my present judgment is that the fusion project will meet all these technical targets one by one but, in the last resort, will fail to be economic because of the complexity and difficulties of the technology. Let us hope that I am being too pessimistic. And certainly let us maintain a proper United Kingdom contribution to this great international effort. But let us also be realistic about the timescale for possible exploitation of the technology and realistic about the eventual hard test of the market place.
Let us also be realistic about the environmental impact of possible power stations based upon the fusion process. It is sometimes forgotten that a fusion power station will be radioactive just as a fission power station is radioactive. There is no great difference in the potential environmental impact that these two types of nuclear power station could make. The fusion reactor would certainly use tritium, which, because it is radioactive, would need to be handled carefully. At

543
a guess, we might expect technical questions to arise on the same scale that our Canadian friends have with their heavy water reactors. They are all solvable.
The material making up the fusion reactor is bound to be radioactive. It is therefore bound to give radioactive waste. It certainly will be possible to avoid the production of actinides and fission products and with luck we might be able to avoid the longer-lived activation products. We therefore may hope that the radioactive waste from a fusion project might be roughly comparable to that arising from the decommissioning of a fission reactor although we will not have the waste comparable to the spent fuel of a fission reactor.
There are no technical difficulties in dealing with these waste problems. The problem in both cases will be to win public acceptance for the disposal of that nuclear waste. I mention this radioactive waste matter most particularly at this point for fear that we mislead the public into thinking that this is a nuclear reactor that avoids nuclear waste altogether. The noble Earl carefully avoided giving your Lordships that impression. His was a very fair description of the waste situation.
My caution about the eventual economic success of fusion must be balanced by the promise of an infinite energy source capable of serving mankind in perpetuity. Therefore as this great scientific adventure continues I will wish to urge that the United Kingdom continues to play its full part in the international activity. I feel obliged to comment that the present United Kingdom effort is at the minimum credible level to do that. But we will be doing a disservice to ourselves, to the project and to science as a whole if we did not balance our enthusiasm for this work with the realism I have attempted to set out for you today.
I realise that it is unusual, and may even be controversial, for a scientist in his maiden speech to be realistic about scientific research. If so, please forgive me, my Lords, but, whatever you think, thank you for your patience in hearing me out.
6.51 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, in rising to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, I am inclined to think that we could almost close the debate now. My sympathy goes to the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, in having to reply to a debate which has been not only very well introduced but so formidably discussed by the noble Lord. He is of course a great addition to the House. He is a relatively young man; another Fellow of the Royal Society to join our ranks, along with Lord Kearton and others; and a very distinguished scientist. I do not know where his present enthusiasms lie. I know of his earlier defence of the fast breeder reactor and the desirability of eating up the plutonium that his PWRs and others were producing. But I am sure that his contribution to our discussions will be very valuable indeed, and it is a question as to whether we dare put him on the Select Committee on Science and Technology or whether he will blow us all out of the Committee room on the way. However, there is no doubt that we are very pleased to see him here; and his speech was a most acceptable one to us.
544
I am not sure what his own responsibility is for JET as former chairman of the AEA. He does of course sell them a lot of electricity at the moment, which they probably appreciate. On looking him up, the only other matter which I can find in common is that we are both honorary Fellows of St. Hugh's College, one of the few colleges who do not admit men except as Fellows.
I was interested in his style because he has something of a sanguine temperament and he gave us a very balanced view. I think that there is very little that I need to say beyond asking Lord Gray to deal with some of the questions.
I was interested in the noble Lord's comment on radioactivity. At least I understand that the amount of long-lasting radioactive material may be less than in the case of some of the existing reactors and that there may not be the problem. Perhaps Lord Gray would comment on this. A great deal will depend upon the engineering and the materials used, quite apart from the tritium which will be a source of radioactivity. It is fair to say that for once the British are playing a full part in the Community role, and it is depressing when we see our failure to continue the deep-sea drilling to think that even this particular operation might in 1990 be at risk. It is difficult to defend JET simply on the grounds that they produce an extraordinarily good European school—which is an attractive element within the general equation of these activities—but there is no doubt that we should have lost quite a lot of our scientists who now work happily at JET and who, among other things, are able to place some quite valuable orders and contribute to our technology in this country, which otherwise might not be possible. I think therefore that Lord Bessborough can be thankful. He, like Lord Ironside and others, played a large part in the early days in ensuring that JET came to this country.
Owing to the lateness of the hour—which is the kind of phrase that 25 years ago we would have used with horror, whereas this is now relatively moderate—there is very little more that I need to say other than to wish success to those very dedicated scientists, Dr. Pease and others, at JET—who speak so freely and are so willing to advise us—and the properly considered support of your Lordships' House.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, Culham has played a large part in my life for more than 20 years and, although it was just over the border of my husband's constituency, a very large number of the eminent scientists who worked there lived in our area, what was then North Berkshire and is now mostly called Oxfordshire. We had many friends among them. I have therefore listened with particular interest to your Lordships' learned speeches this evening and I join with many other noble Lords—and I am sure with the noble Lords who have yet to speak—in thanking my noble friend Lord Bessborough for introducing this Unstarred Question this evening.
I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring—I am tempted to say my noble friend of long standing—on his most erudite maiden speech. Out of the many remarks he made I was particularly touched

545
and moved with the sentence almost at the beginning of his speech, about "Swords into ploughshares" and "faith in the future". We shall look forward very much to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, in this House in the future.
I do not myself feel competent to comment on the specialist scientific details which are being so ably expressed this evening, but I should like to touch on two matters which I believe to be of great importance. The first is that in this country—and I do not believe I am exaggerating—we have a genius for invention, and particularly for scientific invention. But, unlike other countries, we do not always recognise this sufficiently to give the necessary financial backing for the research and development. Your Lordships may recall that I pressed this matter with much support from all parties for the adoption of the British AGR power station. However, it must be a matter of great satisfaction that Culham Establishment was chosen to host this important project of JET, with its unrivalled facilities which I believe induced our scientists and those eminent foreign scientists to assemble at Culham.
My second point is about employment. I am sure that your Lordships on all sides will agree that this is a great matter of importance to all of us in this country. If Culham had not been chosen, there would, I believe, have been a disastrous brain drain to America or elsewhere of our inventors and our scientists. I believe that they would have gone despite the marvellous initial work which they have already achieved here. In addition there would have been serious losses to our local and wider British economy.
JET—which of course your Lordships know is the Joint European Torus—has already resulted in orders of some £95 million with United Kingdom industry, including the United Kingdom AEA, and since 1978 the total I believe has been about £220 million. Currently, there are about 600 non-industrial staff working on the JET site, including 430 team posts and contractors, and the benefit of course does not include the money spent on goods and services by the influx of people into what I like to call—because I still live around there—"our part of the world".
It is, I believe, a great success story and one of which we may be very proud. It is the reason that I have pressed in the past, and shall continue to press in the future, for the adoption of the British invented and constructed AGR power station. Despite the success of Hinkley B and Hunterston B during the last coal strike, the failure to make a definite decision to place orders for AGRs has already caused 1,200 redundancies at Gateshead and considerable loss of jobs at Stockport and Renfrew in factories specifically created to manufacture these relevant components. Let us, as at Culham, with foresight for the future of our grandchildren—because I realise that a project like JET must look to the far future—back our British genius and our British workforce.
7.2 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Bessborough for tabling this Unstarred Question this evening because I think that it is again time for us to take stock of the progress being
546
made with fusion research. However, first, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, on his expert maiden speech. None of your Lordships can say that his remarks on fusion were confusing. Indeed, they were instructive, inspiring and they were also admirably realistic. Energy out must exceed energy in, and there must be an energy gain. I think that we can say in this House that we have gained the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, and I hope that we shall be able to hear him again making a contribution in our debates on energy matters.
We are investing a great deal of money, and the lead time into a commercially viable fusion reactor option extends well out into the next century, as the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, has said. However, unlike many other endeavours such as fuel cells and biotechnology, where there are many spin-offs along the line, fusion means going to the end of the line—you either get it or you do not; you cannot pick up any of the benefits half way along.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, I have taken an interest in the EEC fusion programme since the question of siting the JET project was proposed by the commission in 1976 and the Select Committee on European Legislation in this House—of which I was a member at the time—inquired into the proposal. Noble Lords will recall that there was great concern over siting JET at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra in Italy, as we felt that our bid for Culham was unassailable at the time. On behalf of the committee I visited the JRC at Ispra and the Max Planck Institute at Garching with the late Lord Hinton to judge the issues for ourselves and to see whether the EEC proposal was sustainable and why Culham was not favoured. Both establishments opened their doors to us and we had wide-ranging discussions with management, the unions and the educationists.
It was not until we had visited the European school at Varese—and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, mentioned the European school—that we realised the importance that EEC employees placed on the proper education of their children and the high standards that they demanded. A European stream in a comprehensive was being proposed by the Socialist Government at the time, and that just was not sufficient inducement for commission staff to work in England. Moreover, as my noble friend knows, the Government decision to set up a European school was instrumental in bringing JET to Culham, It is important to realise that JET is the first EEC project to come to England, and I welcome it. It has been a success all the way.
Possibly one other reason why the JET experiment is more suited to the United Kingdom is that the Ispra region suffered some earth tremors at the time the sites were being considered and those tremors were also felt at Garching. In fact one of the crystal containers in, I think, the Stellerator experiment, was shattered, and that perhaps was one good reason why expensive experimental equipment like JET should be sited in a stable place like Culham.
I should therefore like to ask the Minister how the school is now developing and what plans he' has for expansion and catering for a wider cross-section of the business and scientific community as in Varese, instead of just the children of employees of

547
international organisations such as the EEC and the European Meteorological Office at Bracknell.
It is heartening to read in the JET annual reports about the achievements in setting up the test rig and in carrying out experiments on time and to cost, and to see the way in which information is exchanged on the international network between countries working on the fusion task. Here in Europe we are committed to the international Tokamak research school of thinking through magnetic confinement, rather than the other school involving inertial confinement and laser beams.
The Lawson criterion for conditions needed for fusion reactions to take place—that is to say, getting the right product of temperature (up to 100 million degrees Celsius); plasma density and confinement time—more or less implies that magnetic confinement (that is, the bottling process mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall) is the best bet. However, I hope that my noble friend the Minister can say what is the status of inertial confinement at the moment and what progress is being made on the US Saturn project. I should like to know what values to attach to this alternative approach to fusion and at what point we have to make up our minds which system to opt for, if we have to do that, bearing in mind that a decision on constructing NET—the Next European Torus—which involves super-conducting magnetic confinement, is due to be taken in 1991. This country has a most important part to play with this technology, which comes from that innovative area of England, the North-East—Newcastle—which has already produced people like Parsons and Swan.
I should like to mention two particular aspects of JET which concern me and I hope that the Minister can give assurances about them. The CEGB supplies power directly to JET, and the demands made on the grid network—the super-grid network of 400,000 volts—even taking into account the flywheel storage, are sudden and immense. With these sudden shocks to the system, is the network at risk at any time, and as JET demand and loads increase, can the CEGB still deliver with pulses called for, as I understand it, every 10 minutes or so?
When JET moves on to the deuterium-tritium experiments planned for 1989—if they are justified, and by all accounts I believe that they are—these will depend on the realisation of the tritium handling laboratory at the Joint Research Centre in Ispra. Has the case for this laboratory now been made? Does the United Kingdom support it? It seems to be a vital step in the fusion programme and the JET project, if scientific work is to remain on target and cost.
Despite the long-term advantages, very few of the new technologies like wind generation, fuel cells, combined heat and power and geothermal are likely to be deployed extensively enough to make a significant contribution to power generation. Only fusion offers this hope in the long term. I believe our support of the EC programme must continue.
7.10 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in common with all those who have spoken I should like to thank the noble Earl for having given us the opportunity to talk
548
about this subject. I must offer him my apologies for missing the first few minutes of his speech, but as he did me the courtesy of providing a copy of it in advance of the event I do not think I missed anything.
It is right and appropriate that from these Cross-Benches I should congratulate our latest recruit, my noble friend Lord Marshall of Goring, on a wise, witty and modest maiden speech fully conformable to the traditions of your Lordships' House. Quite clearly on the technical front it was wise. In his warnings to us against euphoria it was modest. As to wit, there was a sparkle about his opening passages which augur well for the future. I am sure we all look forward to hearing him again on many occasions. I am glad that he came down plonk on the side of internationalism.
I was talked into internationalism long years ago by a combination of Niels Bohr and the late Lord Blackett. I have been an internationalist ever since. In so far as I have any criticisms of big science it is that we are trying to do too much locally with local resources instead of conserving it for international efforts.
I wish to say something about a point of ambivalence in relation to big science of which Culham and JET are good examples. There are two things involved in big science: one is the construction of a piece of very advanced engineering and the other is the application of that construct to some field of subject matter which has only an indirect connection with the advanced engineering which is incorporated in the apparatus. Furthermore, the advance in engineering may overflow widely. A good example would be the first Fairy-Ferranti computer-controlled milling machine where the hydrostatic bearings were a development of what was originally designed for the giant telescope on Mount Palomar. It is a good example of big science overflowing in the engineering field into applications which were never originally contemplated.
I had a good example of this some years ago, if your Lordships will bear with a little narrative. During the course of the 20 or so years when I saw service with what is now the Science and Engineering Research Council—previously the Science Research Council and before that the DSIR Advisory Council—I had occasion to make a state visit to the Royal Observatory, not at Greenwich, not at Herstmonceaux, but at Edinburgh.
There I talked to the professor of astronomy. I said, "You seem to have a very flourishing school with a lot of students. Tell me, how many of these students will end up as professional astronomers?" He said, "Not 1 per cent.". I said, "What is the justification for employing so many people in the study of astronomy?" He said, "There are two justifications: first the tradition of the university is that we are willing to teach those who want to learn and as long as this number of people want to learn astronomy, astronomy is what we will teach them. That is the first point, but do not suppose it ends there. Every one of my students leaves my school as a fully qualified expert spectroscopist who can earn his living in any branch of industry where spectroscopy is employed". The spectroscope in physics and chemistry is what the microscope is to biology. It is the great tool that allows

549
one to look inside atoms, whether it is X-ray spectroscopy, ultraviolet or infrared; whether one is looking into atoms or molecules, it is the key tool. Learning astronomy was an opportunity to be trained in the professional use of this one key tool which could be employed anywhere.
I did a lot of thinking about that conversation. I looked outwards to all the big science with which I have been concerned in my life as one of the givers of the loaves and fishes by kind permission of the Treasury; Peer review it is called. I think of the Jodrell Bank telescope. I think of some of the big computer projects in which I have been involved. I think of the initial decision to start CERN and to build the intersecting storage rings and I should like to review these very big projects. Let us take CERN and the Rutherford laboratory. They are exercises in the most advanced control engineering of their day. They are exercises in the most advanced material science of their day. They are exercises in the most advanced computer applications of their day. The number of people trained in these—I call them the birds of passage—is very much more important in a way than the resident population of those who form the permanent staff of these big organisations.
Space exploration, my Lords. One cannot land a rocket on the moon or take off again by hand. It has to be controlled by a computer. One must have a totally reliable small computer capable of being carried in a rocket. That was the motive to develop all the advanced circuitry which is the basis of the computers that our children play with when they are learning arithmetic.
Thus I come to Culham and JET. I went to talk to Dr. Pease at Culham the week before last to see what I could do by way of quantifying the birds of passage that go through Culham and receive a good training in the most advanced engineering applications characteristic of this magnificent project. It would appear that there is a permanent population of birds of passage of about 100. Some of them are holiday students staying there for only 48 days in a year or something like that, but some are there for two years. If one supposes that one year might be characteristic of their residence time then over a 10-year period 1,000 people would go through the ambience where this advanced engineering is taking place and get a training and have opportunities to work either as subordinates or colleagues with some of the most skilled imaginative scientific minds of their day and age.
This is something that we ought to learn to quantify. We must not think of these projects as perhaps an investment made for posterity. People often criticise the doing of things for posterity by asking the somewhat cynical question, "What did posterity ever for do me?" What posterity is doing for me now in this day and age through JET is to develop new control engineering devices, new materials and a new outlook. Unless we were doing it we should be working in a vacuum, not the vacuum of outer space but the vacuum that comes from a total lack of ideas.
One cannot say, "Let us go and do some high technology. Let us do some advanced engineering". One has to engineer some thing. The late Lord Blackett always used to say that the product of science is knowledge—the knowledge of how something works
550
or something to be understood or something to be constructed. But one must have a target at the end of the road: it must be a CERN, a JET or something one is going to make.
One worry I have—and I hope the noble Lord. Lord Gray of Contin, will take this seriously—is the budgetary side of Culham and JET. They are only provided for five years ahead: there is no budget beyond the year 1990. This is too big a project to allow the people working on it not to know what is their future for more than five years ahead. That is not good enough. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, will take this problem very seriously to see what can be done.
I do not want to be non-constructive. If one criticises something one must have an alternative. I believe there is a job here for the SERC, or possibly our own Select Committee on Science and Technology, to quantify the birds of passage through all these great enterprises and to find out where all the Ph.D students who go in for nuclear physics go after they have gained their Ph.Ds. They do not go permanently into CERN or to Rutherford. They do other things, and we ought to know what other things they do. This might be a joint enterprise for the SERC and the Select Committee on Science and Technology. Field studies on demographic lines are dull things for anybody to have to undertake, but they are extremely important and I hope that this aspect of Culham and JET as training grounds in advanced engineering for our young people is something that will not be forgotten.
7.20 p.m.
Viscount Torrington: My Lords, I rather shamefacedly have to admit, and it does not say much for my investigative powers, that I spent three years at Oxford as a student in a science subject and frequently passed the gates of Culham without ever finding out what went on there—I mean Culham, not Oxford!
I am therefore particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Bessborough for introducing this debate today. Rather as with the electricity analogy with JET that we have already heard, I am quite sure that I shall get rather more out of this debate than I shall be putting in, not least from hearing the really excellent maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring. He has brought to our deliberations today not only an unrivalled depth of knowledge on the subject of energy, but indeed energy itself. I join with others in saying that I hope we shall hear him often in this House and I know that we shall welcome his wise counsel in fields far beyond that in which he has made his name.
I was interested in the remarks of my noble friend Lord Bessborough that controlled thermo-nuclear fusion could provide a "cleaner and virtually infinite source of safe economical and environmentally acceptable" electric power. I say this as I understand that at the recent Labour Party Conference—and I was not privileged to attend that august gathering—a motion was put forward on a proposal to halt the building of nuclear power stations and to phase out existing nuclear generating capacity. With this would presumably go all research into present and future forms of nuclear power.

551
I imagine the expressed reasons for this suggestion probably hinged around environmental and safety aspects, and, whether or not expressed, I do not think one has to guess very hard that possibly a more important reason was that certain people wanted to increase and maintain coal production at high levels. Were such a suggestion actually adopted as the policy of a future government of whatever colour, the consequences for British industry would be catastrophic, both in terms of electric power costs to industry in the future and in terms of the brain drain, on which my noble friend Lady Airey has already touched, of qualified scientists from this country.
All scientific research has many blind alleys and I sincerely hope that the Joint European Torus project and ultimately commercial nuclear fusion will not prove to be such a blind alley. However, sometimes only a fraction of research expenditure produces a worthwhile idea, or tangible result. It is therefore conversely possible to say that the largest portion of all scientific research expenditure is wasted. It may be so, but without abortive research we shall never have successful research. It is a little like the oil industry in which I work; the explorer may have to drill several dry wells before he finds one which produces oil, but hopefully that oilfield will pay for all the unsuccessful expenditure on dry wells.
We could of course divert all research expenditure on nuclear matters into subsidising the production of coal at ever-increasing prices. It is extremely doubtful, however, that such a diversion of resources would produce the long-term benefits, even if they are halfway through the next century, which would be produced by a successful breakthrough in harnessing thermo-nuclear fusion as the servant of mankind.
My noble friend Lady Airey has already stolen my thunder on the figures of investment in JET, so I shall pass on to the point of my noble friend Lord Halsbury regarding the "overflow" in engineering.,
I am told that in addition to direct research in the field of thermo-nuclear fusion, the Culham laboratory has gained a number of orders utilising by-product ideas of its mainstream research. These cover the protection of aircraft and computers against lightning and electrical discharges, specialised laser technology for the glass, printing and packaging industries, ion-beam technology for deep implantation of high energy oxygen ions into silicon in the micro-chip industry, and many others. These growing activities of Culham are currently producing an income of some £2 million per year.
Like my noble friend Lord Bessborough, I believe it is vital that this research is pressed on with, and I hope that we can have some assurance from the opposite Benches, and indeed from these Benches, that should there be a different government in the future, research into thermo-nuclear fusion, and indeed the nuclear power programme itself, will not become a casualty in the cause of artificially maintaining employment in the mining industry or because of expenditure cuts.
A source of energy for which the raw materials are relatively cheap and abundant, and which produces far less—well, somewhat less, perhaps a lot less—unpleasant residues with their attendant disposal
552
problems and few emissions to choke the air we breathe, is a very desirable objective. I hope through the medium of the JET project and its successors we can achieve that objective.
7.25 p.m.
Lord McAlpine of Moffat: My Lords, at the risk of appearing to be repetitive I should like to say how very much I, along with many others, have enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Marshall. It was both interesting and instructive. I should like to make one remark. He said he ran the risk of being regarded as pessimistic. I should say that that was quite wrong because he was talking from genuine, practical experience and knows of the problems that are around the corner, that one does not meet until one is involved in one's operation. Apart from that, I think it was jolly nice to hear what he had to say.
I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Bessborough for raising this debate because it is not really for us in our lifetime that this matters, but we have to think of our children, our great grandchildren and the people to come. We are living in a heavily populated country. On the one hand the people expect a continuing, rising standard of living, and on the other hand, obviously, we have minerals that are not only coming nearer to exhaustion but are costing more to produce. Therefore, we must produce some tangible and definite way of dealing with something in the future, and it seems to me that here we are on to something that must be followed up.
The last thing I should like this House to believe is that I understand the intricacies of this very advanced technical discussion. I certainly do not, although I have been involved with many scientists. I talk to you as an industrialist. As such, I believe that if this country, or any country, is to survive in this competitive world, it must be treated as a business. If one were running a large company, what would one do? One would be very careful about one's on-cost. One would endeavour to have cash reserves. However, if one really wanted one's company to survive one would start ploughing money into what is called R and D, research and development. It may well be that at times a scientist can take one along the wrong road, but one has to allow for that. Unless this country is prepared to spend vast sums of money, no matter what it costs us, to make sure that we have a steady and sound future in our research and development, then I think there will be a very bad outlook for the future. That is why I am so very grateful to may noble friend Lord Bessborough for raising this subject.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, has introduced a subject which has led to a very informative and stimulating debate. He introduced it with an admirable speech which covered the 20 years over which he has been associated with the developments in this field. We have subsequently had the remarkable maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring, in which I think he made very clear to all of us what are the practical issues in this exciting and scientific adventure, as he described it. In particular, what I was most grateful for was the very clear way in which he described break

553
even. I must say that in reading about this subject, I had assumed that one suddenly reached break even and that was the end of the story: one had got there. But in point of fact he showed us that there are three very clearly distinct stages in break even and that the ultimate break even, namely getting more electricity out than the electricity that is put in is unlikely, in practical terms, to be achieved until some part of the first half of the next century.
I think this gives us very clearly the time scale of the operation. It does not in any way detract from the need to pursue it, but it makes us realise that this is in fact a long-term energy project. There are two aspects of this project which I should like briefly to mention. The first is its international aspect. I think that there must be very few major research projects today which have stimulated so much international co-operation. In fact, it is interesting to note that after a very distinguished British scientist first patented the idea, the first tokomak was developed in Russia, and that following on that successful development in Russia there are today four large tokomaks in operation in various countries—at Culham, as we know, in America, in Japan and so on. There is now a free exchange of experience from all these developments co-ordinated in Vienna and, as far as one can make out, there is no inhibition of any size in sharing the experiences and the successes achieved. Very large sums of money are being devoted, much expertise is being gained and, in the international sense, it is being freely shared. I think that this is one of the most important and impressive aspects of this exciting scientific adventure story, as Lord Marshall described it.
The second aspect to which I should like to refer is the part that this project should play in our over-all energy research strategy. It is, as we now know, very clearly a long-term project. It must play an important part in preparing for the long term. But we must not forget about all the other research efforts which we should be putting in. It was not the purpose of today's debate to go into that; nevertheless, I feel that our long-term research in energy should play its proper, balanced role compared with all other aspects of energy research, and I should like just briefly to remind your Lordships that the other aspects of energy research are, of course, research in other forms of nuclear energy. The noble Baroness, Lady Airey, referred to the successes that we have already achieved in this country with the AGR and this should be pursued in a research sense to improve on that.
There is non-nuclear energy research which we should not diminish in any way merely because of these exciting projects in the future. There is research in renewable sources of energy which some of us feel are not being sufficiently supported at the present time. And perhaps one of the most important aspects of energy research is the research in improved utilisation of energy having regard to the environment. These are all aspects of research which have to be considered together. I believe that the JET project, the thermonuclear project, is one which should properly play its part in our overall research programme but I would hope that at some future, not-too-distant, date we might be able to debate in this Chamber once again—because time passes and developments take
554
place—the whole area of our energy research in order to make sure that we have got the balance right, that we are devoting the right amount of time and attention to the longer-term projects as well as to the more immediate projects.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for raising such an important subject at the present time and also for his kindness of giving me an indication of his direction and thinking on the questions before us tonight. He has had this item on the agenda for as long as I have been a Member of this House and I think that we should commend his persistence and his patience; and I sincerely hope that he feels that his persistence and patience have been well rewarded by the excellent debate of such super quality that we have had tonight. I should like also to thank Dr. Pease, Director for Fusion at Culham Laboratory, for his unstinting assistance; and I can assure your Lordships that without that assistance I would have been quaking in my shoes rather more than I am at the moment, bearing in mind the subject in hand and bearing in mind that quite obviously I am a layman in a den of scientific lions.
I should also like to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring. I have to tell him that his reputation preceded him in this House. We expected a good speech from him and I am glad to say—and everybody will agree—that we had a superb speech from him. Although he was pessimistic. as one noble Lord has described it, he was right to draw our attention to the fact that fusion, while it is a great adventure story, nevertheless has to be approached with realism.
There have been many false starts before and I shall refer to that later; and it is important that we know what we are about and where we are going. I think that the House can be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, for bringing this aspect to our attention. He believes that nuclear fusion will not become an economic possibility until the mid-twentieth century, and I think he may very well be right in that. But I think that he would also agree that the economic case will have to be decided then against the cost of other fuels available at that time. So that may be in fact a note of optimism which perhaps can temper his pessimism. Nevertheless, we have had from the noble Lord an excellent speech and I sincerely trust and hope that we shall hear a lot more from him in the future.
There may be some who believe it to be premature and unproductive to raise this subject at this stage when, as we have heard, the prospect of electrical power from nuclear fusion reaction seems so dim and distant. But I am not among them and neither is the Labour Party for whom I speak from this Bench. I hope that that will reassure the noble Viscount, Lord Torrington, who may not have been to Labour Party conferences but who, I am sure, has been to Tory Party conferences and understands exactly what the conference season is about.
Indeed, we believe that increasing doubts about nuclear fission add to the urgency of solving the problems of obtaining from nuclear fusion a commercially viable and attractive energy gain. When

555
I refer to doubts about nuclear fission I do not do so in any party political sense. The fact is that any party in power has to consider and deal with the problems which arise from the fission process and take into account the public perception of those problems. Again, that was a point which was touched on and brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall. He understands that you have to take the public with you.
As your Lordships well know, the major difficulties facing fission involve the leakage of radioactive material into the environment—and we have had problems at Sellafield; people have been prosecuted and public fears have been roused—the transportation and long-term disposal of highly radioactive materials and the decommissioning of power stations when they have served their useful life. These problems have not yet been entirely solved and there is a growing opposition to all the options at present available. In theory at least the point could come when fission power stations could not operate because those difficulties have not been overcome.
Therefore, the successful development of the fusion process must be attractive not only because it gives the prospect of a limitless and virtually inexhaustible fuel source for electricity generation but also because, as I understand it, the problems arising from radioactive waste while not entirely absent are of a much lesser order of magnitude than from the fission process and could be more easily handled.
I am not a physicist and I cannot discuss in any learned sense the theories of plasma physics although I was educated by the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, in the matter tonight. Indeed, my mind boggles at the complexity of what is being attempted in seeking to imitate, in a controlled and microscopic way, the process which created the sun and keeps it alive. Man is, through the fusion process, attempting to reproduce the conditions which are the basis of all creation. Thus we are seeking to adopt a role and achieve powers which hitherto have been reserved for the gods. No wonder success is taking rather longer to achieve than we thought in the 1950s, when serious work began on the fusion process! In 1958 expectations were raised following the ZETTA experiment that were not fulfilled and could not have been expected to have been fulfilled. For example, the Daily Telegraph of 25th January 1958 published this sort of headline:
"ENERGY FROM THE SEA IN 20 YEARS".
That was in 1958. The year 1978 has come and gone a long time ago and we are still a long way from that energy from the sea.
Such headlines were of course misleading and over-optimistic and arose from a statement by Sir John Cockroft that he was 90 per cent. certain that fusion was a viable proposition. We now know that there are formidable difficulties to be overcome before fusion can be an economically viable proposition. We also know that results will come more quickly if there is co-operation between the nations engaged on fusion research and it is unfortunate that some of the work associated with lasers, both in the USA and the USSR, is shrouded in secrecy because of the defence implications. However, as we have heard tonight, there has been considerable co-operation between
556
countries, and the JET project at Culham is a remarkable example of European nations coming together to pool their resources and expertise to achieve a common goal which, if and when attained, will benefit not only themselves but the whole of mankind.
Not that such co-operation was achieved easily. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, himself knows this full well because he was involved, and indeed he assisted in getting this co-operation. Some Members of this House will well know it was at one stage touch and go as to whether the project foundered, particularly over the issue as to the location of the site for the construction of the project. It would not I think be unfair to claim that British enthusiasm for JET was crucial in ensuring that construction went ahead and that the personal intervention of the then British Prime Minister, James Callaghan, in 1977 ensured that JET was secured for the United Kingdom. But, as I have said, it was touch and go as to whether JET proceeded to construction phase and at one stage the design team was actually on the point of disbandment. Britain was a powerful force in saving the project, but even so our influence was in some sense weakened due to the expenditure cuts that we had made in our own fusion programme which might have given an indication of waning confidence in the ultimate success of the fusion process. I sincerely hope that the lesson has been learned and that we shall hear an encouraging message from the Government when the noble Lord replies to this debate.
From progress reports it can be ascertained that the JET project has in fact gone very well so far. The apparatus has been constructed to cost and to time which in itself is a considerable achievement, and a very able international team has been built up and is working together very successfully. The British component within the team is large and highly competent and is a confirmation that the British genius for invention is alive and kicking in fusion research as elsewhere. Furthermore, and very importantly, co-operation with British industry is excellent, with consequent benefits for the project and British industry itself. In fact, 43 per cent. of all contracts since 1978 have been placed with British industry, now totalling £95 million, and £16 million was involved during 1984. In a technical sense, too, I understand, the project is doing well and it must be remembered that this European project is currently leading the world in this type of experiment.
Inside the JET apparatus gas temperatures have reached 50 million degrees Celsius for periods of many seconds, and somewhat higher temperatures have been achieved for shorter times. That such temperatues have been achieved and contained is a feat so considerable that it is difficult for non-scientific mortals like myself to assimilate, but in simple terms temperatures have now been achieved which exceed the minimum needed for energy-producing thermonuclear fusion. However, the degree of thermal insulation so far achieved is not yet sufficient for a reactor and there remains much hard work to be done in this respect. The scientists involved are enthusiastic and are optimistic that success can be achieved for the JET project in its aim of demonstrating that energy from the fusion process is technically possible.

557
We are of course, as has already been pointed out, a long way from the commercial production of electricity by nuclear fusion and we are probably talking in terms of a demonstration reactor some time in the early years of the next century. But eventual success can only come given the sustained commitment by our own Government and the Governments of our partners to fusion research both on a national basis and through international co-operation. I have a feeling (and I sincerely hope that I am wrong) that with the easing of the international oil supply crisis there has been a diminution in governmental enthusiasm for research into nuclear fusion. Noble Lords will be aware of the article in the New Scientist of 10th January 1985 which indicated that over the next three years Britain's budget for research on thermo-nuclear fusion will fall by around 20 per cent., and if this is so it is indeed most unfortunate.
Our people at Culham believe that the research is aimed at a worthwhile target—namely, a major new source of energy for Europe and the world community—a source of energy in fact that could transform the world and help bring new hope for the underdeveloped nations of the world and their underprivileged people. It is essential then that our own Government express their own confidence in nuclear fusion by maintaining Culham as a strong centre of fusion research.
This is not to advocate throwing money at fusion research. We would certainly not want to do that. But we say that the people involved should continue to be properly resourced for the work that they have to carry out. The amounts of money may be quite large and the timescale long but the eventual reward could be the goal of limitless energy for the use and betterment of mankind.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Bessborough for giving us the opportunity to have this short debate this evening. We know of course of his great experience in this subject. We know of his great knowledge of, his enthusiasm for and his dedication to the subject. We are grateful to him for introducing the debate this evening in his usual distinguished style. I should like to offer him my personal congratulations for retaining the enormous amount of knowledge which he has acquired over so many years.
I should like also to associate myself with those who have already offered congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Marshall of Goring. My days as Minister of State for Energy meant that from time to time our paths crossed, and perhaps I could warn your Lordships that although the noble Lord, Lord Marshall, was non-controversial tonight it is in his nature to speak up as the occasion demands. Like the rest of your Lordships who are present this evening, I look forward very much indeed to hearing his contributions in the future.
But to my noble friend I would say that one of the principal reasons why I am so pleased that he has been patient, and has given us the opportunity to discuss this matter, is that it gives me an opportunity on behalf of the Government to review for your Lordships the
558
present state of the art in fusion research and development both in this country and internationally. The subject is of course of interest because, if the scientific and engineering problems can be overcome, thermo-nuclear fusion could eventually offer the prospect of unlimited energy.
I think it would be helpful to noble Lords if I were to give a brief review of current work in the United Kingdom and elsewhere and then to try to set the results into the context of the progress which must be made before fusion reactors can become a commercial reality. The United Kingdom's national programme is carried out as an integral part of the Euratom Fusion Programme under Contract of Association with Euratom. Under this contract, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority undertakes to do certain work of interest to the programme. In return, the Commission provides funds; about 25 per cent. of the costs of the general running of the laboratory at Culham and about 45 per cent. of the cost of certain specific projects which are judged to merit preferential support.
The broad strategy of the Euratom programme is, first, to establish the scientific feasibility of the fusion process. This is the current phase. Following that, there would be a phase to establish the technical feasibility. That would lead to a phase in which a demonstration of commercial feasibility would be attempted. The flagship of the Euratom effort is the Joint European Torus. The European Council of Ministers agreed in 1978 to set up a Joint Undertaking lasting until 1990 to design, construct and operate JET, and they agreed to site it at Culham.
Of course, we were all so pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Airey give us her views on Culham and to learn what close associations she had had with it. We appreciate how she feels about Culham and, of course, we accept the points which she made about future employment. I shall not be led towards the path of some of the other suggestions that she made, particularly in relation to various reactors, because I think that I would be rather out of order if I were. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that. But I know exactly how my noble friend Lady Airey feels about Culham and I am sure that we are all very much with her on that subject.
The total estimated cost of this project to 1990 is £600 million. The United Kingdom contributes approximately 12 per cent. directly through the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. In addition, the United Kingdom contributes through the EEC budget to the Commission's 80 per cent. support to JET. The aim of the project is to build and operate a large tokamak device in order to extend the investigation of conditions for controlled thermonuclear fusion close to those needed in a reactor. Here I wish to thank my noble friend for his splendid description of the tokamak system of magnetic confinement of high temperature plasmas. JET is the world's most advanced tokamak and, as yet, there are no plans anywhere to build a more advanced device. It started operating in June 1983, having been constructed on schedule and at a cost very close to budget. Already it has, as my noble friend has said, achieved confinement of plasma currents of 5 million amps, thus exceeding its design characteristics.

559
Further investment is in progress and under consideration with the aim of increasing the temperature and density of the plasma so that it more closely approaches the point at which nuclear reactions in the plasma could contribute to the heating. Preparations are also under way to introduce tritium into the plasma. This radioactive form of hydrogen is the fuel most likely to be used in a fusion reactor, so it is essential that its behaviour in the plasma is studied.
Within the Euratom programme there are other large tokamaks under construction at the places to which my noble friend referred in France, Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany. These and other devices are used to investigate the effects of different ways of heating the plasma, of controlling its shape and of keeping it free of impurities. These other laboratories also use toroidal devices with different magnetic configurations, as it is not yet clear that the tokamak would be the most suitable basis for engineering a reactor.
The United Kingdom's programme is primarily based on various experimental devices at Culham, but also includes work on theory and computational studies and work on reactor technology. The main aims of the programme are: to give scientific and engineering support to the JET project; to continue studies on specific problems complementary to JET in an experimental programme based on similar but smaller scale devices already at Culham, the DITE and CLEO tokamaks, together with the construction of a new medium-sized tokamak called COMPASS; to continue limited studies of alternative magnetic confinement systems, in particular using a device called HBTXI at Culham, and contributing to a joint project in Italy, both of which explore a particular magnetic configuration called reverse field pinch; to participate in the design study for the Next European Torus and to studies on the international tokamak reactor concept (INTOR), which is co-ordinated by the IAEA and involves the USA, the USSR, Japan and Euratom. Both these devices would begin to explore engineering feasibility.
The largest and most broadly based fusion programme in the world is that run in the USA. In the financial year 1985, the United States Department of Energy budget for fusion is 595 million dollars. Roughly one-quarter of this programme is spent on inertial confinement fusion; that is, using lasers or other highly energetic beams to compress and heat tiny pellets of fuel in which the fusion reaction can take place. The United States magnetic confinement fusion programme is more diverse than that in Europe. As well as investigating tokamaks and other toroidal devices the United States has devoted substantial effort to development of the mirror magnetic confinement principle. Instead of having a closed tube, the plasma is held in a straight tube with magnetic and electric fields to prevent the plasma leaking out of the end.
The fusion programme of the Soviet Union is also broadly based. As my noble friend Lord Bessborough said, they pioneered the tokamak system of magnetic confinement in the 1950s and this remains the major focus of their attention. Our latest information is that they are building another tokamak, T·15. It will be
560
comparable in size with JET but, unlike JET, will have superconducting coils. But the Soviet Union is also heavily committed to the fission-fusion hybrid system. In this system, a blanket of fertile material is used to breed additional fissile fuel for thermal power stations.
The Japanese programme has from its beginnings in the mid-1950s been heavily weighted towards the tokamak concept. Eighty per cent. of their fusion expenditure is devoted to magnetic containment systems. Recently they have started operating their JT-60 device. This is similar in size to JET, but without a tritium-deuterium capability. The rest of their effort is devoted to other concepts, including research into mirror magnetic confinement, which has become significant since 1979. The Japanese have also recently supported with money and scientists the DOUBLET III project, a tokamak in the United States and other collaborative projects.
Research into the fusion process is also undertaken in a number of other countries, including the People's Republic of China. The Chinese programme includes work on both toroidal magnetic confinement, mainly tokamaks, and mirror magnetic confinement, fusion reactor studies and laser fusion research.
The existing approach of seeking international collaboration to solve the problems of fusion power—many speakers this evening mentioned international collaboration and advocated that that is the route which we should follow—is fully supported by the Government. The scale of the devices required to solve the many problems that still lie ahead means that they are likely to be beyond the means of any one country to find the financial and scientific resources required. This had led already to a great deal of international collaboration, and it seems only sensible that this should be the route in the future. Hence the Government's commitment to the JET project under the agreement on the joint undertaking and the Host agreement. There is also a structure of formal contacts between the laboratories in OECD countries, notably through the International Energy Agency which has set up several agreements for collaborative work on particular aspects of fusion research. We are involved as well in studies on INTOR, the international tokamak reactor concept. These are carried out under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. As is to be expected in any field of scientific endeavour, there is also considerable informal contact between those participating in it.
During the course of our most informed and interesting debate this evening a number of points were raised with me. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me to follow some of the points which had been raised by our distinguished maiden speaker. Indeed I felt that to some extent the noble Lord had answered some of the questions himself during his maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who is distinguished himself in these matters, asked me about fusion producing long-lived radioactive waste. The fusion power would not produce the long-lived actinides or fission products characteristic of the fission process, but the tritium fuel for fusion reactors will require careful handling. The structure of a fusion reactor will be subject to intense neutron bombardment and will become radioactive, but the problems of radioactive waste management, as

561
was indicated in the maiden speech, may be lessened by the development of the structural materials which will not become as highly activated in such conditions. Studies on the environmental aspect of fusion reactors are included in the United Kingdom and Euratom programme.
My noble friend Lord Ironside, a little earlier in the evening, was kind enough to let me have a number of the questions which he included in his speech, and I am glad to be able to answer some of the points which he raised with me. I shall draw his query about the European school to the attention of the Department of Education and Science because it is a little beyond my remit and I cannot give him a direct answer about it at the moment. My noble friend also asked me whether we were satisfied with the power supply and whether the CEGB could in fact deliver. There is no problem of overall capacity of the CEGB to deliver power to JET. I understand that to match the type of load provided by JET, a reactive load, some additions to the power supply equipment are being considered. But I am not aware that the cross-Channel link will make any direct material difference in this matter.
The noble Lord also asked me about the Government's support of the tritium laboratory at Ispra. I can tell him that at the research council of the European Community on 4th June we agreed to the establishment at Ispra—part of the Community's joint research centre—of a laboratory to investigate safety aspects of the handling of tritium. Staff from the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority have helped Ispra in defining the requirements of this laboratory.
My noble friend also asked me how we can judge inertial confinement fusion is proceeding. The bulk of the civil research on this topic is in the United States. Major results are published in scientific literature and the participants in the Euratom fusion programme keep watch on these developments through informal contacts with the United States laboratories.
We heard a most interesting speech from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury. We are grateful to him for sharing with us his enormous knowledge on this subject. Along with my noble friend Lord Torrington, who I have come to know more through the oil industry than through the nuclear industry, the noble Earl wanted to know about post-1990 arrangements for JET. While I recognise their concern for stability, I would expect that the JET council would make proposals at the next review of the fusion programme by the European Council.
I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord McAlpine of Moffat, who holds such an eminent position in the construction world, confirm what of course I knew—his great support for research and development and the fact that he welcomed what was happening at Culham and the money that was being used in order to further the research there.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who wound up for the Alliance parties, raised the question of the need for balance in energy research and development. I would agree with him. I share his concern in this matter, and the Government do also. We shall certainly try to ensure that there is a reasonable balance as far as research and development is concerned. Over the
562
years we have given a considerable degree of priority to scientific research and development which is now there for all to see in the advances made in the nuclear industry.
So much for what is being been done. Where has all this effort got us to? Let us recall that what is required is a very sound understanding of the physics involved in confining an extremely hot gas inside a magnetic field; finding ways to heat it without disrupting the plasma and without introducing impurities. Beyond that we would need to find engineered solutions to the problems of extracting heat from the plasma; of maintaining a device which will become to some extent radioactive; and providing a means to refuel it. These are all major problems. In relation to the physics it is clear that there is still some way to go in understanding all the required processes, but there is hope that the present generation of large machines and all the complementary devices operated by the four major programmes will within a decade have provided sufficient results for judgments to be made as to scientific feasability of fusion.
It sometimes seems to me that fusion research has a great deal in common with detective work. Much time in detective work is spend collecting and proving evidence and only when every "t" has been crossed and every "i" dotted will it be possible to go ahead and make an arrest. In such situations it does not pay to cut corners. So it is with fusion research. Fusion is stretching the limits of our scientific knowledge and we are only just beginning to approach the formidable engineering problems that lie ahead.
It is too early, then, to speculate on when we might achieve break-even or that other rather lengthy and unrepeatable word used by my noble friend. We and the scientific community should all be very pleased if they could with JET achieve reactor relevant conditions within the timescale that we have set ourselves. Only then will we be sure of the direction in which the research is taking us. In the meantime, your Lordships may wish to take comfort from the fact that the United Kingdom has been blessed with a broad base of energy reserves which will see us comfortably into the 21st century.
I was encouraged by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, this evening, when he displayed the confidence and gave the assurances which many of us hoped for regarding the attitude of his party to JET in the future. These are important matters and I am glad that the noble Lord has firmly placed on the record the commitment of his party to the future of JET.
Finally, I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to Dr. Wüster, the former director of JET, who sadly is no longer with us. We owe him a great debt. We look forward to continued success for the new director and his team and the bringing to fruition of all the hopes invested in this project. In conclusion, may I once again thank my noble friend for giving us the oportunity of discussing this matter tonight.

West Glamorgan Bill [H.L.]
Committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Birmingham City Council Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at twelve minutes past eight o'clock.

  LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES: PRIVATISATION
  LOCAL AUTHORITY SERVICES: PRIVATISATION
  FAMILY INCOMES: AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS
  FAMILY INCOMES: AVERAGE WEEKLY EARNINGS
  REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS: STATISTICS
  REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS: STATISTICS