My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, although a further round of offshore production licensing is under consideration, no decision about timing has yet been taken. Non-exclusive exploration licences—as referred to in the noble Earl's Question—may of course be applied for at any time.

My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether it is the case that, thanks to the British/French agreement about the median line in the Western Approaches, there are now areas that could be licensed when the time is ripe? Could the noble Lord give any indication whether the Government are thinking of that area?

My Lords, I take it that the noble Earl is referring to the sixth round. The Government have not yet determined what arrangements should apply for further offshore production licensing.

My Lords, I am sorry; perhaps I did not make my question clear. Following the British/French agreement about the demarcation of areas of interest in the Western Approaches, is it now not the case that the area South-West of Lands End could be offered for licensing?

My Lords, the recent arbitration decision confirmed United Kingdom rights in this area and the Government therefore considered it appropriate to designate the territory quickly so that exploration of oil and gas could proceed. It is of course far too early to say what prospects the area holds, though it is generally thought to have promise. The Government certainly envisage that the private sector will play a role in the exploration of the area.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that over three years ago I asked a supplementary question on the basis of the noble Earl's second question. Would he bear in mind that we, in the South-West, are intensely interested in this prospect of having oil from that part of the country? Would the Government also bear in mind that, if oil was discovered off the South-West, it would help them and all of us in the arguments with the Scottish nationalists?

My Lords, I will pass on what the noble Lord has said to my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Energy and the Secretary of State for Scotland.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper:

My Lords, the arbitration agreement of July 1975 under which the United Kingdom/France Court of Arbitration on De-limitation of the Continental Shelf was established contained provision for either party to refer back to the Court any dispute as to the meaning and scope of the Court's decision within three months of its delivery. Following delivery of the decision in July of this year, Her Majesty's Government made such an application to the Court on 17th October.

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him what were the points raised by the United Kingdom delegation?

My Lords, the reference back to the Court raises two technical issues arising from the Court's decision. The first relates to what appear to be discrepancies in the choice of base points North and West of the Channel Islands. The other relates to what appears to be a discrepancy in the drawing of the line out into the South-West beyond the Scilly Isles and the French island of Ushant, which lies off the mainland of Brittany. Those are two technical points.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say how soon we expect to get these matters resolved?

My Lords, the Court have asked the French Government to submit a written response to the United Kingdom's application by 10th December. I have no doubt that that is in by now. The President of the Court has convened a meeting of the Court with parties, and that will take place this week, on 14th and 15th December. That will consider procedure in relation to our application and the French response to it. It may or may not include oral hearings. I could not give a date for the final decision on the applications, but I should not think that it will be unduly long.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that information coming to England through devious channels informs us that the Brussels Commissioners are now demanding the right to explore for oil in British waters? Can the noble Lord tell me whether it is the intention of the Commissioners, under the Treaty of Rome, to take to the Court which is protecting our interests the matter of British petroleum?

My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government regarding their own United Kingdom oil is perfectly well known. No doubt we shall, in agreement with our friends and allies in the Community, come to a working arrangement about minimum sale price and the availability of exports surplus to our own requirements. I do not see that any reference or amendment of the Treaty of Rome is called for.

My Lords, can I take it from that reply that the Government will not agree to the Community's taking over our oil from the North Sea?

Yes, my Lords, I believe I can safely concur with my noble friend in that sentiment.

My Lords, is it not a fact that the French have already "beaten the gun" off Ushant in exploring for oil?

My Lords, I could not confirm that report. I should certainly like to look into it. But as the moment, as my noble friend said in replying to the first Question put by the noble Earl, the position is that a considerable area for further designation was announced on 23rd November in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy. This, according to the order of 15th November, will open up a very large area reaching out beyond the Scillies and no doubt in the direction of Ushant.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, at its meeting on 6th to 8th December, the working group considered a paper summarising replies from Member States to a questionnaire on airline overbooking. The working group agreed to put recommendations to the Directors General of Civil Aviation aimed at encouraging an early and comprehensive solution through IATA.

My Lords, while not being sure whether or not I should be disarmed by that reply, may I ask my noble friend whether he anticipates that in late January we may (a) have a report on that summary, and (b) whether lie hopes this will mean that the whole of an air traveller's ticket may be covered for compensation rather than only half of it. as at present?

My Lords, I notice that my noble friend has tabled a further Question which we can consider after the Recess. I think we should await that occasion; but in the meantime I think my noble friend would wish to know—and I hope this may disarm her—that IATA has very recently established a special group to consider the whole matter of no-shows, overbooking and denied boarding compensation. I believe that IATA will be looking for proposals without undue delay. This, and other questions, I suggest to my noble friend, might best be left until after the Recess.

Yes, my Lords; but does my noble friend realise that I am very well aware of what IATA are doing because they have been kind enough so to inform me? Is he also aware that I am on a separate issue? I am sure that the House recalls—and probably he does too—that I am asking, on the question of compensation for overbooking, whether this may now apply to the whole of a ticket and not just to half of it. Is he furthermore aware that it would be unfortunate if this were muddled up with the whole question of compensation for overbooking, which would take some considerable time to resolve? Could he ensure that in January I get an answer to the specific question I am putting, which refers to the full ticket and not to just half of it?

Yes, my Lords, I will make sure that matter is covered in any Answer I give in January. It was of course part of the subject matter of the questionnaire to which my original Answer referred.

Then I should like to wish my noble friend a happy Christmas and a prosperous New Year and hope that I get a good Answer.

My Lords, I am most obliged; I am not going on any air journey.

My Lords, in view of the continuing interest in this matter, would it be possible for the document which was recently submitted to the conference referred to by the noble Lord in his original Answer to be placed in the Library?

My Lords, that indeed refers to the part of the Question that my noble friend has down for after the Recess. I would say that the working group which considered this paper is a junior part of the machinery of ECAC and I do not anticipate that it will be possible, until the senior body has considered it, to give ally publication to it.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, the Common Customs Tariff duty on mechanically propelled aircraft, other than helicopters, of an unladen weight exceeding 15,000 kg. is totally suspended until 30th June 1978. The only criterion for waiving the duty is the unladen weight. Since the Boeing 737 and Douglas DC.9 aircraft both weigh over 15,000 kg. this criterion is fulfilled.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that somewhat satisfactory Answer. Can he also please state whether, in the event of one of those two types of aircraft being purchased, there would be duty to be paid on the spares for them?

My Lords, I think that I should need notice of that question, but I shall certainly look into it and let the noble Earl have a reply before we rise.

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how one tells whether an aircraft has been imported or has only just arrived?

My Lords, I am sure that the appropriate officials have full cognisance of this.

My Lords, has the noble Lord not announced some novel departure in this matter? Has it not been the case until now that the aircraft to which the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, referred have been subject to duty unless a Treasury directive was issued? Is it not further the case that this Treasury directive requires inter alia that the aircraft shall not be used for domestic flights within the United Kingdom? Has the noble Lord been announcing some change in the policy?

Not a recent change, my Lords. I think the system which the noble Lord has in mind was the system which applied before we harmonised with the Community arrangements in these matters. I think he will find that what I have said about the present arrangement is the outcome of our harmonising with the Community.

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that clarification. But did he not also say that the present situation which he described is continuing only until the middle of next year, and is it not the case that the purchase referred to in the Question is likely to happen after that date? Is he satisfied that the arrangements which he has described will, in fact, continue after the middle of next year?

My Lords, there is no specific purchase referred to in the original Question, but I take the noble Lord's point that there are matters under consideration. He is right that the suspension takes effect until the second half of next year, but it is too early to say what would be the Government's attitude in a reconsideration of that matter.

My Lords, may I ask one more supplementary question? If, by chance, the suspension were ended on 30th June, would it not be extremely unfair to British Aerospace, which has an aircraft in the same category as these two which I have mentioned?

My Lords, I am sure that that aspect of the matter would be very much in the minds of the Ministers who were considering the continuation of the suspension.

My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement on the visit of President Giscard d'Estaing.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to abandoned vehicles and other refuse. I beg to mave that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 1^a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Bill read 1^a, and to be printed.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision with respect to proceedings in the United Kingdom by or against other States; to provide for the effect of judgments given against the United Kingdom in the courts of States parties to the European Convention on State Immunity; to make new provision with respect to the immunities and privileges of visiting heads of State; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 1^a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Bill read 1^a, and to be printed.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to raise the maximum amount which can be taken from a depositor by a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 and to increase the amount of such deposits which can be taken at any one time. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 1^a.—(Lord Jacques.)

On Question, Bill read 1^a, and to be printed.

rose to move, That this House approves the code contained in paragraphs 1–41 of the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock (No. 5) (Sheep), laid before the House on 10th November. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that Code No. 5 of the Code of Recommendations for the Welfare of Livestock, relating to sheep, a copy of which was laid before the House on 10th November 1977, be approved. We are today dealing with a matter of animal welfare, a subject in which this House has always shown a keen interest—and rightly so. I am glad that it falls to me to have the honour to invite your Lordships to approve a document which represents what I regard as a useful step forward in the development of our provisions to safeguard the welfare of livestock in Britain.

My Lords, I regret that the confidence shown by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is not reflected on this side of the House, for a very good reason: that there appear to be gaps in the Code. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to three specific areas. The first is water. This is dealt with in paragraph 8, which states:

"Drinking water should be available to all sheep".

It will be within your Lordships' recollection that when we examined the other Codes we made a number of observations. On the sheep code, this is one.

Secondly, there is no reference to shade for the animals. There is reference to shelter in paragraph 20, and in paragraph 38 there is reference to shelter for young lambs. However, the problem of shade occurred most markedly in the summer of 1976, when for about three months of the year the landscape took on the appearance of Northern Spain. Furthermore, the problem of shade affects sheep at other times of the year—occasionally in the spring, for example—but there is no reference to the need for shade. This problem has to be coupled with the outbreak of elm disease throughout the country and the enormous effect which it has had upon tree cover. It is our view that this is a serious omission from the Code.

Thirdly, there is no reference to the opportunity being given for scratching. In many parts of the country it is a matter of management to provide scratching posts on buildings and in fields—either the roots of old trees with sharp points or deliberately planted posts which are set up from time to time.

How right the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, was to refer to the very high standards of stockmanship which obtain in this country. They are very well known throughout the world. It is our view that it would be most unfortunate if this Code fell short of perfection. If it is to be used as an advisory tool, as part of a group of Government publications which are passed to university departments and to others concerned with agriculture, what a pity it would be if there were serious omissions.

I return to the matter of water, which was raised in another place. As my honourable friends mentioned on 6th December, very often it is a matter of stockmanship that water is not provided. Since sheep are herbivorous, very often they obtain the moisture that they need from either beet tops or other forms of food which carry within them sufficient moisture for the animal. If, therefore, paragraph 8 remains in the Code:

"Drinking water should be available to all sheep",

and farmers and stockmen decide that to provide it is unnecessary, they will offend against the Code and conceivably will be liable for prosecution. That is a mistake. Codes are intended for guidance and if unsatisfactory guidance is given in a Code it should be amended before it is approved by Parliament. Noble Lords will observe that the front of the document bears the stamp, "Not yet approved by Parliament". I believe that these items are worthy of consideration before your Lordships give effect to the Code.

If is difficult to know how we should proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has asked your Lordships to approve the Code as it stands. However, may I ask that the questions which I have put to the noble Lord should receive a satisfactory answer. Otherwise, we on this side of the House will find it quite difficult to know how to proceed.

My Lords, I was a little puzzled as to how to describe the Code, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor helped me out by referring to a Bill that he was about to introduce as a load of rubbish, and, with his permission, I should like to refer to this Code in those terms. I shall not do so, however, because it has been produced by the Ministry of Agriculture, for which, believe it or not, I have a very high regard. With your Lordships' permission, therefore, I shall content myself with just saying that, for two reasons, the Code is platitudinous rubbish.

If the Code is to be used in an advisory capacity, as the noble Lord's honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned in another place on 6th December, it cannot do much harm; but it cannot do much good, either. As my noble friend Lord Sandys has already pointed out, reasonable shepherds already do what is suggested in the Code. Unreasonable shepherds do not, and producing a mass of paper will not make them do it, either. Too much paper is chucked at shepherds and farmers.

If the Government really believe that producing this little piece of paper will make unreasonable people become reasonable, I implore them to think again. What it can achieve (if that is what it is trying to do) is further to hinder me—or may I use the term "fox" me?—in discovering among what comes on to my desk what is and what is not important. I should have thought that, to your Lordships, that would be important. I can assure your Lordships that 99 per cent. of the Codes that are sent to farmers—and we have been told that every farmer will receive one—will end up in their wastepaper baskets, and I should much prefer to see it end in your Lordships' wastepaper basket than in my ditch as litter. Added to that, it will cost quite a lot in postage and I thought that your Lordships were keen on reducing postage so that we might send cheap Christmas cards, which I believe some of your Lordships are very keen on doing.

The other side of the matter—and I shall not keep your Lordships long—is that if it is not going to be advisory it is going to be enforced. This was suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary in another place on 6th December. If so, who will do it? This really could make worse nonsense and in some hands it would be positively dangerous. I know that I am going to fly rather low here and be shot down but, sadly—and I mean this absolutely sincerely—the relationship between farmers and some animal welfare organisations is not of the best and such a Code as this could only make it slightly worse if they use it in a stupid manner, which I hope and pray they will not do.

My noble friend Lord Sandys has already mentioned various specific points and I entirely agree with what he has said. I should also like to comment quickly on a few more. Paragraph 2 refers to absence of lameness. What shepherd can honestly say that his sheep are not lame? They will be lame today and OK tomorrow, or vice versa. Heating: heating at the top of Snowdon, my Lords. What is wrong with the Aga? I will also refer to another rather dangerous item—paragraph 16 on castration. Castration must be done with an anaesthetic according to the Act. For various reasons, Welsh lambs are not castrated at birth—or very few are; most of them go off fat before they need to be castrated but, when they come down into the lowlands and maybe I buy them, they then have to be castrated. I hope I am not going to make myself a criminal but I am afraid that at that stage it is impracticable to use an anaesthetic, and indeed it would not help if they are pinched. That is a low flier and I accept that I shall probably be shot down upon it!

Paragraph 19 refers to electric fences. If they do not cause pain and distress, how do you keep the sheep in? This morning I have already chased 400 tegs across kale. It was very wet; I wish my electric fence caused a lot more pain! It is a rather stupid remark, if I may say so.

Lastly, sheep dogs. It is said that they should not grip sheep. Of course they should not grip sheep, but I might remind your Lordships of the other side of the story, that sheep dogs which do not do their jobs meet an untimely end. I think one should remember that: it is why they are such a marvellous breed. I might also add an extra paragraph—42—saying that if a shepherd sees a sheep with three legs there is obviously something wrong, but I shall not.

If your Lordships think that I have a natural fear of paperwork and that my office is in a muddle, you are quite correct; but I suggest that it is not in quite the same state as is the Ministry's office. As the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, told us, there is an advisory publication entitled Sheep, and then it says: "Available at the time of going to press". When I rang up on Saturday there were only 10 of the 24 available, so before they take the mote out of my eye they might take out the beam in their own.

I agree with the comment made by my noble friend Lord Sandys in regard to the words: "Not yet approved by Parliament". I should like to ask your Lordships not to approve it. I am sure I am not allowed to ask that and I should not get you to do it anyhow. I do not know how to do it and I am sure it would be out of order anyway, but I should like to see this in the wastepaper basket. Failing that, I should like to ask four questions of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. First, who will enforce the Code? Secondly, it talks about rapid diagnosis of ailments. This requires handling arrangements, and handling arrangements are very expensive. Will the Government ensure that the profitability of sheep farming is sufficient to ensure investment in satisfactory handling equipment and fences? Thirdly, will the Government assure me that the Code is not a basis for prosecution, or explain how it is to be used if they do intend to bring shepherds to court?

Lastly, if a shepherd is brought to court, who will sit in judgment? Will it be justices of the peace? If so, they might be town justices. Will the Government assure me that, before convicting a shepherd of cruelty on any of these grounds, they will ask for professional advice? I should like to see the Ministry of Agriculture veterinary officer called in; I should like to see other shepherds called in and, obviously, I should like to see the National Farmers' Union Livestock Committee called in. I should like to know to whom the court would refer.

I am sorry to be so critical but I feel that I can finish by congratulating the Government on one point in the Code. It is this: it is entirely appropriate that your Lordships should be discussing this matter of sheep and shepherds at Christmas time.

:My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a few moments because what I have to say does not arise directly out of the action we are asked to take this afternoon. I believe that in our thoughts, if not in our actions, this afternoon is what happens to our sheep and lambs when we pack them up, ship them to the coast, and send them over the Channel for slaughter in Europe. There are two sides to the lives of animals in this country: the care that we give to them while they are with us and the indifference we show towards them when they leave us. This traffic is being conducted on an increasing scale and the port of Dover is fully occupied all the time by the transport through it of more than one half of the hundreds of thousands of live animals which are being shipped across the Channel for slaughter.

The RSPCA's special investigation unit which has been operating at the expense of a voluntary organisation and not at the expense of the Government, has been following these cargoes in Europe and has seen what has happened to them; and much that we are discussing this afternoon on the care to be given to our animals in this country is disregarded when they get to the other side of the Channel. I know that the Minister is undertaking his own investigation into the conditions for the export of live animals for slaughter, and I should like to ask my noble friend how that investigation is progressing.

I have tabled a number of Questions of late to get information about this traffic. For example, I have asked whether shipments were sent over the Channel in force 9 and 10 gales such as we have had recently, and was relieved to hear that shipments have been suspended in very bad weather, although I am still awaiting a reply to a Question about a particular cargo on a particular ship which went over during that period. So I make no apology for raising now, as I shall raise again and again, questions relating to animal welfare in this country and exposing, if I may respectfully do so, the ambivalence of many of us towards animal welfare in this country, and attitude can be one of great kindness and great care for animals while we have them, but, in many cases, complete indifference to what happens to them afterwards. This applies to horses, and I shall be raising that subject tomorrow. It applies to dogs, it applies to sheep, it applies to the little woolly lambs that all the children of this country are encouraged to love and cherish—all this is part of the enormous traffic in living animals which are sent under conditions which, I am sure, if we could see them for ourselves, we should find intolerable.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was quite right when he said the point he wanted to make had nothing to do with what we are discussing at this moment, but I do not think we would begrudge him the opportunity of again putting on record something about which he feels deeply. I should like to support my noble friend. When, some 23 years ago, I was complimented by being invited to become a junior Minister in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and was there for three years, one thing always delighted me. I felt that in that Department, certainly during that period, there was less bureaucracy than in almost any other Government Department, and I thought that was a matter of some pride. But it does strike me as being bureaucratic in the extreme that this Code, which certainly does not cover the whole field, is going to be circulated over a wide field, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said; it is going to cost a great deal of money, and I should have thought to little purpose. It could well be that it will irritate the people to whom the noble Lord paid compliments for being very good in looking after their stock. If it is that this Code of Practice does not cover, for example, the important point to which my noble friend Lord Sandys referred, they will not have any respect for it in any case.

The question I should like to ask, because the matter has not been made absolutely clear, either in another place or here so far, is this: Is this purely an advisory document which will not have the force of law behind it and will not be produced as the basis for instituting proceedings against anyone, or is it going to have the force of law behind it? Is it going to be produced in order to justify a prosecution which may have been brought by someone who perhaps does not know so much about the actual incident he is bringing before the court as the shepherd or the farmer himself? I should have thought it ought to be made absolutely clear whether or not the document has behind it the force of law, and even at this late stage I believe it ought to be examined to see whether the expense that will be involved in printing and circulating it is really justified, bearing in mind the commonsense possible good that could flow from it.

The point that my noble friend Lord Sandys made is a relevant one. In this Code of Practice it says that water "shall be available". If water is not available, that will be an infringement of the Code. But, as my noble friend said, there are many instances where, in the view of the people who understand these matters, it would be detrimental to have water available to that extent; it would not be in the best interests of the livestock they have in mind. If the force of law is behind this Code, and if a part of the charge against someone is that he had not got water available, when his view and other expert view is that water ought not to be available for good technical reasons, is not that making nonsense of the law? Is not that the sort of thing that causes people who want to be law-abiding to be irritated? I have a lot of sympathy with the general view that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, put, but Parliament's job is to be incisive and reasonable in the documents it produces, particularly if those documents are likely to be produced as evidence as to whether or not someone should be prosecuted and, possibly, fined.

My Lords, as what I believe is termed a flock-master, in that I have 250 Kerryhill ewes, I must confess that I have not studied this document. But all those I have spoken to who are in a like position refer to it as being rather a farce. I would support the noble Lord in what he says about thinking again. I should like to take up one point, that about castration. In Australia and here I have always used the New Zealand ring point for castration. What are we now going to do? We have now got to have injections. This seems to me to be flying absolutely in the face of all reasonable experience in managing sheep. If I may make one reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said on the subject of crossing the Channel in a force 9 or 10 gale, I have done that in my boat, and I do not see why sheep could not do it also.

My Lords, I declare a quite considerable interest in the subject of sheep, and I have read this document. All I can say about it is that if any of the shepherds I employ did not do any of these things they would not be where they are now. I, and my husband before me, have had shepherds from generations of the same family. If I issued this document to them, they would either laugh or they would say, "Is this somebody who wants to know? If so, it is a pity they did not keep it inside the Department. It is quite useful to the Department, no doubt, but everything in this document we have been doing for 30, 40, 50 years all of which is quite true. I think this is such a simple document that, quite honestly, it does not produce anything which is new; it does not produce anything of any significance beyond the ABC of shepherding, which is already very well known to anybody who is engaged in the industry.

There is nothing wrong in saying that it is a good idea to care for sheep, that it is a good idea that they should have good conditions. Of course that is all right. But to spend a lot of money on it, to issue it to every farmer, particularly to those engaged in this type of industry, is, I honestly think, a terrible waste of money. I am sorry to say so because I think the noble Lord's intentions are admirable in every way. This seems to me to be something which the Ministry of Agriculture must have had on their shelves and thought they must bring out now. I cannot believe that it makes any contribution at all. It is really a waste of money and a waste of time. That is perhaps rather a strong statement, but that is what I feel about it.

My Lords, like the noble Lord behind me, some years ago I was also a Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, responsible for the welfare of farm animals, and I had to stand at the Box defending different charges when it was believed that things had gone wrong. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to our callousness when it comes to parting with our animals and their transport overseas. I can recall in those times, 15 years ago, that the ill-use of animals within this country, ill-use about which complaints were made, was not when they were on the farm but when they were being transported from the farm to an auction mart, being handled in the auction mart, being transported again from the auction mart, either to ports from which they might be proceeding overseas—we had that trouble even then—or else, maybe, to other auction marts or to a slaughterhouse.

I am not suggesting that all hauliers and all transport contractors are callous men, because they are not. But the very nature of the job they have to do makes it very difficult to observe all the conditions in a Code like this. I should like to ask the noble Lord to explain to us when he comes to reply, why it is necessary to produce all this to every farmer and shepherd in the land, but not to produce some similar document at the same time dealing with the handling of these animals after they have left the farm, perhaps to go to an auction mart or to a port for export. That, I should have thought, is the area to which it is much more important for the Government to give attention and to give priority. In saying that, I do not in any way want to lay charges against those who have the job of handling, but I had to make the point in such a way that I hoped the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would realise that it had some substance.

My Lords, I also have an interest and I promise not to detain your Lordships for long. When the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, talked about all Governments being concerned with the welfare of sheep, I could not help thinking that I had been in very close touch with shepherds for 50 years but only in fairly reasonably close touch with Governments for 25 years. I assure the noble Lord that if Governments of both Parties looked after the less happy people in their community even half as well as shepherds look after their sheep the country would be much better placed.

However, apart from that, most of the matters that my noble friends have raised are true. I honestly think that this is a total waste of money. I shall no doubt receive this document and I should like to direct your Lordships' attention to the one possibly valid point in the argument; namely, that nowadays there are a number of people, especially in England who, because of the changing pattern of agriculture which happens from time to time, are beginning to become interested in sheep; who do not have skilled shepherds and who are handling sheep perhaps for the first time on their farms. It may be of some use to give them a document of this kind, but I promise the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, that to do so in sheep country would be a total waste of time and it would make us all the laughing stock of our shepherds if they thought that we were spending time discussing this kind of matter.

My Lords, the Code has had a very mixed reception in your Lordships' House, unlike in another place where it met with general approval throughout, with one or two minor reservations. However, that, of course, is no reason why noble Lords should not criticise it as much as they like. I shall endeavour to answer the various points that have been raised.

My Lords, there is a very good reason why it received an almost unanimous approval in another place. It was discussed at 1.30 in the morning.

My Lords, remembering the autumn of a year ago, even if it had been discussed at 1.30 in the morning in your Lordships' House, your Lordships would still have been full of vitality and energy. I am sorry and disappointed that the Code has not met with greater approval and, quite frankly, I am rather surprised. We already have Codes relating to the welfare of cattle, pigs, domestic fowls and turkeys, and this Code follows on. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has said that there were too many pieces of paper. In my view this is a very precise Code. It consists of only 11 pages and it is very briefly set out. Some of your Lordships have also been concerned that the Code inevitably speaks in such general terms and may question the need to make recommendations which no flock master or shepherd could possibly fail to observe.

The Government recognise that a proficient farmer or stockman can be expected almost instinctively to follow the Code without thinking, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, said so rightly. However, we believe that it is no bad thing to give a reminder even to the experts, and even experts—perhaps I may direct this partly to the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley—surely have open minds and can learn from time to time. As for those with less skill or experience, we consider that the Code contains sound welfare guidance on the avoidance of welfare problems.

I have been asked a number of questions and perhaps I should deal first with those riased by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. The noble Lord asked, first of all, about the question of drinking water. I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this matter. The object of the Code recommendation at paragraph 8 is to ensure that sheep do not suffer through water deprivation. No one will be prosecuted simply because he failed to provide water, but if his failure leads to the sheep suffering unnecessary pain or unnecessary distress, then it is not unreasonable that action should be taken against the person responsible. It is appreciated that, in some husbandry situations, sheep are able to obtain an adequate water intake from their diet—for example, roots, grass and dew. However, it has been widely noted that, even when they obtain sufficient liquid from such sources, they appear to relish the act of drinking. The Code's provision is considered to give reasonable guidance in this area. Sheep can, in some situations, survive for an appreciable period without water as such, but it may not be desirable for them to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, also raised the question of shade for sheep and suggested that the Code should recommend provision of an area of shade in which sheep could gain protection from sunlight in hot weather. He mentioned the drought of a year ago. The sheep in full fleece is a very well insulated animal and its wool insulates it from direct sunlight as well as from the cold. A newly shorn sheep will, of course, lack that insulation, but, in general farm practice, there cannot be many situations where some natural shade is not available. I agree that sheep should not be denied access to a shaded area, perhaps under a bank or a wall, but it was not considered reasonable, in view of the minimal nature of any hazard to their welfare, to recommend the artificial provision of this in all husbandry situations. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, also raised the question of the need for sheep to scratch. It was not considered to be reasonable to make a specific recommendation in the Code, although it is likely that sheep which wish to indulge in that activity would find a natural means of doing so.

The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, also raised a number of matters. First, he asked about enforcement. This matter was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I remind the House that the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968 already makes it an offence to cause unnecessary pain or distress to livestock on the farm. Although breach of a Welfare Code does not of itself render anyone liable to prosecution in any proceedings for an offence under the 1968 Act, the Act itself makes it clear that such a failure may be relied upon by the prosecution as tending to establish the guilt of the persons concerned.

The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, also raised the question of lameness. For all sheep the welfare Code recommends inspection at appropriate intervals for signs of injury and the treatment without delay of injured, ailing or distressed sheep. It also recommends that stockmen should be experienced and competent in the prevention and treatment of foot-rot. We believe that that is sound advice. The noble Lord also raised the question of castration. I can appreciate that some hill farmers may find it onerous to comply with the requirements of the law on the use of the rubber ring method, but I feel bound to point out that the control exists to prevent unnecessary suffering to the animal and those who find themselves unable to observe the seven-day rule should not use this method of castration. I should have thought that if a flock on hill land is properly supervised at lambing time, as the welfare Code recommends, there will be little difficulty in meeting the legal requirements on castration.

The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, also asked about sheep dogs. The worrying of sheep by dogs is a difficult problem and the Code rightly draws attention to the need to keep dogs under control. Also, as regards England and Wales, it draws attention to the rights of a flock owner in this matter. I am sorry that the noble Lord also found that all the advisory publications were not available. I shall, if I may, go into that matter and write to him about it. He also raised the question of electric fences. Electric fences should not cause unnecessary pain or distress, and that calls for proper installation and maintenance. It is accepted that a momentary shock may cause pain, but that is regarded as necessary.

My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, raised—as I expected he would—the question of the exports of live sheep. Indeed, he extended that to deal with exports of all kinds of livestock and other animals. The question of whether live exports should continue, of course, is not one covered by the Code, or one that we would normally be debating today, although I am sure that my noble friend was right to deal with it if he wished. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has commissioned a Departmental inquiry into the development of the livestock export trade over the last three years. I submit that it would be better to await the outcome of that detailed examination of the facts before passing any judgment on the matter. I have no doubt that the Minister will take note of the observations made by my noble friend and other noble Lords. My noble friend also asked me when the report was expected. It is hoped that this will be early next year.

That is it. I am sorry that your Lordships do not think that the Code is perfect.

My Lords, could the noble Lord comment on my short speech and tell us why this Code should refer to the management of sheep on farms and completely ignore management when sheep are in transit in this country to and through auction marts, and maybe further? I submit that it is in that area where there is much more likely to be ill-treatment than on the farms.

My Lords, we have no evidence to show that sheep are exposed to a greater risk to their welfare while they are being transported than when they are on the farm. However, there are separate provisions for safeguarding the welfare of sheep and other animals while they are being transported by road, rail, sea or air. The provisions relating to sheep are in the form of orders made under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, which is enforced by the local authorities. It is because of the existence of these orders that it was considered inappropriate to include these provisions in the welfare Code recommendations in respect of the welfare of animals during transportation.

As I was saying, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, does not think that this Code is perfect. Of course, this is not a perfect world and there is always room for improvement. However, we feel that the Code will help and go some way to meet requirements. But I shall bring everything that has been said by noble Lords, with all their great experience in these matters, to the attention of my right honourable friend and the Advisory Committee.

My Lords, do we have to pass this Code on to our shepherds?—because if we do, I am afraid that we shall be the laughing stock of our shepherds.

My Lords, I expect that that is for the shepherds to judge.

My Lords, would the noble Lord be so good as to take note of some of the things that have been said today, and make certain amendments to this document before he circulates it to all the farmers in England?

My Lords, I said that. I said that I would bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend and the Advisory Committee. I can do no more than that.

My Lords, the two questions that I asked the noble Lord—indeed, I wrote to him about them and they are Nos. 2 and 4—are there. Will any extra costs to the farmer be met by the Government; and, if a case is brought under the Code, who will sit in judgment? Will they ask for expert advice and of whom will they ask it?

My Lords, I do not think that any particular extra costs will be involved. It is a question of advising a Code of proper husbandry, which the very great majority of farmers and stockmen are already doing, including, I am sure, the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I do not know why the noble Lord is so worried about it. Local veterinary officers, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will, of course, advise.

My Lords, the document does not look as though it is in draft form. Was it printed and ready for circulation before their Lordships had a chance to comment upon it? If the Advisory Committee wished, could the Code still be amended or is it actually on the shelves ready for distribution?

My Lords, perhaps I may draw the attention of the noble Lord to the cover, where it says:

"Not yet approved by Parliament".

On Question, Motion agreed to.

1 My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:

"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about the talks I have had yesterday and today with the President of the French Republic, Monsieur Valéry Giscard d'Estaing.

"The objective of these annual meetings is to develop the habit of regular but informal consultation between British and French Ministers so that this becomes the most natural way of exchanging views on matters of long-term importance to both countries. On this occasion, I was glad to be able to welcome the President to Chequers together with the French Prime Minister, Monsieur Barre, and their colleagues the Ministers of Foreign Affairs and of Defence. On the British side, my right honourable friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Secretary of State for Defence, the Secretary of State for Trade and the Minister of State for Industry took part in our discussions. The talks took place in a friendly atmosphere and revealed a broad similarity of approach to the main issues of the day.

"As I reported to the House on 7th December, current questions affecting the European Community were fully discussed at last week's meeting of the European Council. At Chequers, the President and I discussed the longer-term development of the Community. We found that our views were similar. We discussed the important and pressing question of the Community's fisheries policy on which the Commission's proposals will provide the basis for a further meeting of the Fisheries Council next month.

"We resumed our discussions on the world economic situation and were in agreement that it is essential for the OECD and the EEC to achieve their growth targets next year if unemployment is not to rise still higher. Our own fight against inflation, which is making good progress, needs the help of more expansionary policies in the strongest economies. We discussed the problems arising from the surpluses accumulated by the OPEC countries and by Japan.

"In a thorough review of our bilateral relations, we agreed to establish a committee for industrial co-operation, drawn from senior officials of the two countries, which will identify new areas of industrial co-operation between us. These will include offshore oil technology, technology peripheral to the computer industry, the paper industry and the machine tool industry among others. We welcomed the contacts already established between British Leyland and Renault on possible cooperation between the companies which, while leaving the initiative to them, we support and encourage.

"We discussed a proposal for a 2,000 megawatt cross-Channel electricity cable link. We noted that the generating authorities in our two countries are in negotiation towards an agreement and expressed our support for this. We reviewed prospects for co-operation in the supply of defence equipment, and welcomed the significant progress that is being made. We exchanged views on possible new projects in the field of civil aviation; we agreed that quick decisions were needed on the various options which had opened up and that these matters should be decided on the basis of the commercial and market factors involved.

"We agreed that there will be annual meetings in future between the senior officials of our countries who are concerned with economic management. In a wider framework, we agreed to encourage the Franco-British Council to organise annual meetings, such as we already have with the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries, between leading British and French politicians, industrialists, trade unionists and others to discuss matters of common concern.

"We had a very thorough and useful exchange of views on the international situation. We devoted particular attention to the prospects for a Middle East settlement and to Africa, on which our thinking was very close. We agreed to deepen consultation between us on African problems.

"This latest meeting has confirmed once again the value of these exchanges as a positive and constructive basis on which to build Franco-British friendship".

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for this very encouraging Statement, encouraging for good relations with our neighbour and our partner in the European Community, France. We believe on this side of the House that all bilateral co-operation between partners in the Community ought to be warmly welcomed, and in fact good multilateral relations can but benefit from good bilateral relations among the Member States of the Community.

We welcomed most warmly the presence of the President of France, M. Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, and also the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister as well as the French Foreign Minister and other Ministers who accompanied them. We are all aware that the Western industrialised nations, and of course in particular France and the United Kingdom, share many common problems such as inflation and unemployment, and consideration of these matters in the long term can only be of benefit to both our countries.

We on this side of the House look forward to closer co-operation with France on industrial and energy matters. We believe particularly that co-operation in the internal trade between our countries cannot but benefit a common policy in external trade. Of course I would mention here the visit of Mr. Li Chiang, the Chinese Foreign Trade Minister, who has visited both countries. I hope that joint co-operation between France and Britain will take place so that better terms may be given by both countries in dealing with China.

We welcome particularly the intended co-operation in the supply of defence equipment. We hope that this means that some new steps towards a measure of standardisation in defence equipment is implied. We also trust on this side of the House that the Prime Minister will be reminded of the words of President Giscard d'Estaing when he said that only those countries with a strong defence system will be listened to in matters of international affairs. We would certainly endorse close co-operation in the field of aerospace. Indeed, we have only recently had further examples of the benefit of Concorde which we—or certainly I personally anyway—wish every success. It is a classic example of co-operation in industrial and technological fields. We warmly welcome a link between the electric power grids of France and the United Kingdom, and hope that this will be put into effect.

Perhaps I should speak personally here, but I hope that this is a symptom that we may have other forms of links between the United Kingdom and France, possibly in the shape of a Channel tunnel. Finally, I reiterate that closer co-operation on a practical basis between neighbours and partners is warmly to be encouraged, and we on this side of the House welcome the Statement.

My Lords, we too thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for repeating the Statement. Naturally, we also welcome the outcome of the discussions between Mr. Callaghan and the President of France. It seems to have been extremely satisfactory. As a former Ambassador to France, it gives me special pleasure to think that our two countries are now coming into a period in which our relations appear to be excellent. Long may it continue.

I have only a few questions to ask. In the first place, I note, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, noted, with satisfaction that the Prime Minister and the President reviewed prospects of cooperation in the supply of defence equipment and welcomed the significant progress that is being made. I assume that that means that the European Programme Group, which was founded nearly two years ago and seems since then to have been almost dormant because we have not been able to find out what was happening, has somehow sprung to life. If significant progress has been made, would it be possible for us to be informed what that progress is? I hope that the Government can come clean on that. Surely it cannot be very secret. If there is significant progress at long last, can we be informed what the progress is in practice?

Did the President of France by any chance betray any optimism regarding the outcome of the follow-up conference on European security which is now in progress in Belgrade, and was that matter discussed at all? It seems to be rather important. Finally, is it true that the French President expressed some apprehension regarding the possible postponement of direct elections to the European Parliament until after the next General Election in this country?

My Lords, first may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for her contribution. She put a series of points of view. I agree with her on this fact: There is complete agreement, so there is no point in my raising those issues. I shall now turn to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. I agree that, as a former ambassador, he has a great interest in this matter. I cannot answer all his points. Obviously some matters of defence inevitably might be secret; I cannot say, and I am not in a position to inform the House of the details. I shall look into this carefully and contact the noble Lord. The noble Lord raised an important point, which I accept. It is important that we have agreements with France. We have it in the civil field of aviation, Concorde, which I hope, in the end, will be a success story, despite all the criticisms. On the question of apprehension on direct elections, I do not think so. That is all I can say.

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to clarify one point which emerged from the Statement. As I understood him, he seemed to indicate that the two Heads of State had consistent thinking on the subject of the Middle East. I always understood that there was a wide variation as between the opinion expressed by Her Majesty's Government, and the opinion and indeed the actions of French Governments in recent years. Could my noble friend clarify that point?

My Lords, I can only repeat what the Prime Minister said in another place. He said that our thinking was very close. As to the details of that thinking—and I know the noble Lord, quite rightly, puts to me the whole question of the Middle East—I would hope that it is that both the French Government and the British Government are anxious that the current talks on the Middle East and also the Egyptian and Israeli dialogue will be fruitful and successful. I would only say to my noble friend that I hope that that is so.

My Lords, would the Leader of the House be good enough to keep in mind before we repeat the success story of the Concorde, that in future when similar projects are launched, not only both Houses but the country could be told what the cost is going to be on a realistic basis? The Concorde success story has cost this country well over £1,000 million, and after every successful flight the deficit gets ever bigger. There must come a point in our success story, however affluent we are, when we go "broke". On that basis, if we have similar successes, it would be nice to know whether we could be told in realistic terms what the cost is going to be; and as the cost escalates, as it always does, say in tranches of £1,000 million a time, that the country will be kept informed.

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend; I do not dissent from what he said and he was right to raise it. All I am saying is that I hope it is a success. I should hate it to be something otherwise in view of the amount of money that has been devoted to it. And if we can achieve success in this direction it will give us an important lead in a special section of aviation. That is what I am saying. But I agree that my noble friend is quite right; we must always see to the cost effectiveness of a project of this kind.

My Lords, what about the launching of another project, a cable across the Channel? We have been told nothing about the cost and it would be very interesting to know what figure the Prime Minister has in mind. Is it £10,000 million, £20,000 million or what? Could we be told at regular intervals—not too often; say, at three-monthly or six-monthly intervals—what is happening to the original costings?

As I said, my Lords, the Prime Minister and the President discussed an electricity cable, but I cannot tell my noble friend the details of it. I am, however, prepared to follow it up and write to my noble friend. I am sure he will agree that that is all I can do at the present. This is a project which has been discussed generally.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to agree, first, that some success stories are unquantifiable in money terms and, secondly, that it is impossible to quantify in money terms according to the different rates of inflation which we are given from month to month?

My Lords, as for the latter part of that supplementary question, I am glad to say that this Government, unlike previous Administrations, will achieve success in this direction, so I do not think the noble Baroness need worry. If she gives us her support for our policies now she will get the right answer.

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, mentioned the Channel Tunnel. Was that subject brought up during the discussions? If so, what views were expressed?

I do not think so actually, my Lords.

My Lords, my noble friend said that the question of defence was considered by the two statesmen. May I ask him to say in what depth it was considered and whether there was any indication of a closer association by France with NATO?

My noble friend has raised a controversial point, my Lords. We know the position of France in relation to NATO and I do not want to reopen the argument. I used to press this when I was in another place, when I was involved with defence, and the matter has been noted. I think it is good that there should be exchange and that we should try, where we have joint programmes—the airbus, to give one example—to have standardisation. I believe that France and Britain still have a major contribution to make to the defence of the Western World.

rose to move, That the draft Agricultural Products Processing and Marketing (Improvement Grant) Regulations 1977, laid before the House on 10th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, these regulations, which will apply throughout the United Kingdom, are closely linked with a recently-adopted EEC regulation and it may help if I first say a few words about that. In February this year, the Council of Ministers agreed Regulation No. 355/77 designed to achieve improvements in the processing and marketing of agricultural products. This new regulation will largely replace an earlier one, Regulation 17/64, which had been in operation when we joined the Community. These arrangements—known as the Individual Projects Scheme—had no fixed budget but were simply allocated unused funds from the Guidance sector.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining in some detail this interesting extension of the system to say that FEOGA funds can be obtained for selected projects. There are a number of questions, of which I have given prior notice, which I should like to ask the noble Lord. First, in regard to the budget, the noble Lord mentioned that 80 million units of account had been set aside for this purpose. Would it be possible to express this in the form of pounds sterling? Secondly, is the budget going to extend over a period of more than one year? Is it therefore a budget for a period up to five years? I wonder whether fish farming is included in the remit of this particular order? If so, will the noble Lord indicate which parts of the fish farming industry would be eligible and which would not? Thirdly, in regard to the question of which agricultural products are normally eligible for this type of activity, could he indicate which article in the Treaty of Rome gives us this piece of information?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for the welcome he has given this order and also for giving me prior notice of the questions he was going to raise. I take first the matter of the FEOGA budget and the amount the United Kingdom is likely to receive. I understand that no fixed allocation of the 80 million units of account (which is about £53 million, depending on the exchange rate) will be made to individual countries; but on past performance we would hope to obtain about £6½ million, which is the equivalent, roughly, of 10 million units of account. If this is allocated on the basis of a 25 per cent. rate of grant, which would cover £26 million of United Kingdom investment per annum; the minimum United Kingdom grant at 8 per cent. would amount to £2·8 million, but is likely to be greater as the rates of grant under the Co-operative Grant Scheme, Redmeat Slaughterhouses Industry Scheme and Development Grants are normally above the minimum of 8 per cent.

The noble Lord asked about fish farming. Fish farming as a production activity would be ineligible for FEOGA assistance under this regulation, but I can say that investment concerned with the marketing and processing, which of course would include packing, of such fish would be eligible in principle for FEOGA assistance from the regulation. The noble Lord also asked me about the products and from where one could find which were eligible. Regulation 355/77 concerns the improvement of marketing and processing of agricultural products. These products are defined as those covered by Annex II to the Treaty of Rome, which broadly covers primary agricultural products and the first stage of processing. I hope that answers the points.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 16, leave out ("carrying on undertakings").

My Lords, first of all I should like to thank the noble Lord for what he has said about my part in this, but it is only right that I should acknowledge that the inspiration for it came, of course, from him. I shall congratulate him in connection with the later Amendment which we are going to deal with, but I do so here as well, for both his vigilance and his persistence. He is the real author of the changes which are proposed by the Government today.

Perhaps I should say one word about this matter. As the noble Lord pointed out at Committee stage, the division of the rate burden is potentially, anyway, a matter of concern to all ratepayers. It is for that reason that the Government have accepted the sense of the suggestion that he made, and which is indeed incorporated, or sought to be incorporated, in the Amendment we are discussing, the first Amendment. We think our wording is to be preferred because it achieves what I think the noble Lord sought; namely, it extends the scope of consultation to any person or association of persons whom the Secretary of State might think it desirable to consult.

Perhaps I should just add—and it would be appropriate to say this—that, as to the kind of bodies or associations which the Secretary of State might in fact desire to consult, the general principles which are likely to be applied here are these. First of all, he would look to see whether the body has some special, perhaps technical, knowledge of the matters involved; and, secondly, he would look to see whether it has an interest which is not already comprised in, and perhaps represented by, some other body already in the consultation—for example, COSLA, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. Subject to that, we are happy to accept the principle of what the noble Lord moved in Committee and is contained in his first Amendment, but in a moment or two, perhaps, I can formally move the second Amendment.

I do not want to follow the noble Lord in all the general observations that he made. It is not that I dramatically disagree with him at all, but I believe that over the years there is a close correspondence between domestic rate burdens, on average, North and South of the Border; and the resources element of the rate support grant broadly levels up the rateable values of areas which, in relation to population, are deficient in value.

My Lords, it is indeed pleasing to find that the advocacy of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy when he spoke on the Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill? during our Committee stage has borne fruit. It was certainly a point which was well made then, and has been repeated today, that where the Secretary of State is granted discretion the original words in the second part of the subsection in question were patently somewhat too restrictive. It is pleasing to find that he will have this discretion more widely now in an area which is particularly sensitive in the way that my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has pointed out. It is only fair to acknowledge the reaction and action of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and it is pleasing to find that there has been such a rewarding meeting of minds between the two Front Benches.

My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks which have been made by both noble Lords about Amendment No. 1 and its effect in producing Amendment No. 2. I think that your Lordships have done something to help Scottish domestic ratepayers, and I hope that this will mean that they will use their opportunities—and I am sure they will—responsibly when this Bill is on the Statute Book. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("authority") to ("with") in line 19 and insert (",person or association of persons").

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 3, line 1, leave out subsection (8).

My Lords, I must commend this Amendment to the House because it is the same Amendment that I moved at the Committee stage a week ago and then withdrew after discussion. Amendment No. 5 in my name today was an attempt to go part of the way without taking out subsection (8) altogether. I am delighted that the Government have decided to take out the whole subsection. They are now going the whole way.

This is not simply a matter for a Scottish Bill. I must say a few words about it. It is a matter for United Kingdom legislation as a whole and a matter which has a history in this House. It is very much a House of Lords' question; because this expedited procedure in subsection (8) was first drafted and devised nearly three years ago in this House. There was a Bill, the Offshore Petroleum Development Bill, in passage through the House and at one stage, on 10th February 1975 your Lordships decided to vote out of that Bill a provision which the Government had put in which would have denied any rights to petition the House concerning private legislation where hybrid orders were brought under that Bill, because no time was allowed at all. Then the form of words in subsection (8) were brought in; and on 25th February your Lordships, who had been discussing this matter behind the scenes agreed this new procedure but only in circumstances of great urgency. The period of 28 days was allowed.

During the debate on 10th February 1975, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, who first raised this matter and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, made it clear that that Bill, in its original form, would have deprived this House of the power to remedy injustice and it would have deprived individuals—and particularly people in Scotland in that case and also in the case today—of the right to recourse to Parliament because, under the Private Bill procedure, if an order is found to be hybrid, then individuals have the right to come to Parliament themselves and put their case, having petitioned if they think they are being discriminated against. That right would have been completely removed.

In the circumstances of the Bill in February 1975, this new form of words was agreed giving 28 days; but, as was pointed out at that time, it would still have meant acting very quickly—and particularly so for people in Scotland, over 300 miles away—to get everything done within 28 days. It would have been a misfortune if it happened just before Christmas and they had to use the post to send urgent documents from Scotland to London. That was agreed by your Lordships' House but only for circumstances of national importance and great urgency, which the Government then convinced this House, applied in that Bill.

A week ago when we pointed out that the same subsection appeared in this Bill, the noble and learned Lord was frank enough to agree that there was little, if any, urgency in the present Bill. We also pointed out that in subsection (6) there was this element of retrospection so that the urgency was even less and it was quite unnecessary to have both provision for retrospection and, at the same time, only 28 days in which to carry out the hydrid order procedure. The House, and all concerned with safeguarding the traditional rights of the individuals, should be grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, who has looked into this matter in the space of a week and put down an Amendment which completely meets our point.

I hope your Lordships will forgive me for using these minutes to record that this is an important matter because the same subsection could have been reappearing in other Bills—United Kingdom legislation, not just Scottish legislation—when there was no real urgency and simply because it was there and it might be slipped in. It is very much a House of Lords point and has been in the past. We can conclude that we are agreed on both Front Benches, and in other parts of the House, that this formula which we devised in your Lordships' House in February 1975 is appropriate in circumstances of great urgency. But it should not be resorted to when there is little or no urgency, otherwise the rights and freedoms of the individual, which have been recognised for many years in Parliament, are likely to suffer. I advise your Lordships to accept Amendment No. 4 and I will not move Amendment No. 5.

My Lords, in view of the kindly references made by the noble Lord to my noble colleague Lord Henley, may I say that we from these Benches support the Amendment. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the cogent and lucid way in which he has explained and accepted it.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I informed his noble friend yesterday that I was going to refer to this matter, as he had raised it in February 1975.

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out how unnecessary it was for me to intervene in this debate.

My Lords, may I exercise my right of reply very briefly indeed to say something, because this is the last opportunity to look at Clause 1. First, there were a number of points raised in Committee in connection with this clause and another clause by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I do not propose to deal with those today but I will write to the noble Lord on each of the points. If he is not satisfied, he can let me know and we may be able to deal with the matter at Third Reading.

I should have mentioned at an earlier stage, on the subject of British National Oil Corporation, that bodies do not find themselves in the amended Schedule 1, to the 1975 Act, just by virtue of being nationalised undertakings. Some of them are not. What matters is whether or not orthodox methods of valuation are appropriate for the lands and heritages which they occupy. At the moment one would not say that the lands and heritages occupied by the British National Oil Corporation are not amenable to orthodox valuation. If one reaches the stage where these lands and heritages become no longer amenable to orthodox valuations, then of course consideration will have to be given to amending the Schedule so as to bring such lands and heritages within Schedule 1. At the moment one would not seek to deal with the BNOC in this Bill or in the 1975 Act.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 3, leave out line 8 and insert ("The nominated members shall be persons").

I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this matter. Although I am unable to say that we agree with the Amendment, it gives me an opportunity of trying to clarify a situation which, on the face of things, needs clarifying. It is perfectly true that Merrison has suggested that the Council should consist of 98 members; but it by no means follows that there will be a Council of 98. This is a matter which has to be considered and the figure may be less. If it is, I can see why it does not necessarily meet my noble friend's point which many would consider is a real one.

I want to say why the Government are exercised in their mind not to accept this Amendment. I hope that I shall succeed in persuading my noble friend to withdraw the Amendment for reasons I will give. The Amendment, as he said, would require that all rather than a majority of the nominated members of the Council would neither be fully registered nor hold registrable qualifications.

My noble friend Lord Pitt said on Second Reading that he thought all the nominated members should be non-medical since there would be enough doctors on the Council as elected and appointed members. That is a point he has reiterated this afternoon. The Government believe this Amendment would be a serious limitation on the flexibility of the legislation governing the General Medical Council; and it is a flexibility, if I may say so, that the Merrison Report encouraged and which this present Bill tries to enact, since it would prevent the Government—and I would ask my noble friend to consider this important point—from nominating doctors to the Council, and in particular the chief medical officers of the Health Ministries. I recognise that the Merrison Report recommended in paragraph 404 that the chief medical officers should participate on the Council only as observers, on the argument that questions concerning the setting of professional standards and the regulation of the profession had to be kept separate from questions concerning the provision of services.

We agree with that argument, but think that its application in this case is based on a misunderstanding of the role of the chief medical officers concerned. I want to emphasise that they are the chief medical advisers to the Government and, in that capacity, take a far broader view of the question of the setting of standards than the Merrison Report perhaps acknowledges. They can therefore bring great experience and professional capabilities to bear on the deliberations of the Council. I am sure I do not need to remind my noble friend Lord Pitt that it was exemplified in the recent distinguished service of Sir John Brotherston, who was then the chief medical officer at the Scottish Home and Health Department and also chairman of the General Medical Council's education committee.

We know of nothing to suggest that the presence of chief medical officers or, for that matter, their deputies, as full members of the Council has had other than a favourable influence on the setting of standards. We think that this influence would be lost if this Amendment were accepted, because it would be difficult to fit in chief medical officers, who in the past—and I think this is generally accepted by everybody—have made a very valuable contribution. It is really on these grounds that we resist the Amendment, although one appreciates the reasons why it has been put forward by my noble friend. I hope he will feel that, in asking him to withdraw the Amendment, I have given a satisfactory explanation.

While fully appreciating the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, I must say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that it makes it a rather inflexible rule and indeed really goes too far towards ensuring what is, of course, desirable—that there shall be non-medical members of the Council.

I was going to say that in fact I anticipated the reply my noble friend would give me. But it is my view that if the Government want the chief medical officer to be an ex-officio member of the General Medical Council, there is nothing to prevent that being included in the Bill. A further clause could be added, stating that there should also be ex-officio members and they should be named, or the Government can be one of the appointing members, so that they can appoint somebody to the General Medical Council.

What I am not so happy about—and I bow to the noble Lord, Lord Platt—is the possibility that at some later date the Government will nominate, say, nearly half the members from the Health Service Departments of England, Scotland and Wales, and end up by merely having about half a dozen lay people on the General Medical Council. It is to safeguard against that that I am adopting this inflexible attitude. My view is that if the Government want to make chief medical officers ex-officio members of the General Medical Council, that should be included in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?

I apologise for intervening at this early stage of the Committee proceedings. I assure your Lordships that I shall not detain you for more than a few minutes and that I have no intention of intervening in this way on the rest of the clauses of the Bill, although I hope to join in some of the arguments on Amendments.

On some of the most important matters which arise over the reconstitution of the Genera] Medical Council, this Bill gives no guidance whatsoever. That is deliberate, of course. A great many points have been left to the GMC itself to discuss, to decide and eventually to come before Parliament in the form of Orders in Council. I have no complaint about that They are, of course, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, but we all know how difficult it would be at that stage to have any such orders annulled or amended. I therefore think we should make certain things quite clear at this stage.

Clause 1, which I suspect we are about to agree to, is all-important in that it deals with the composition of the new GMC. In particular, there are to be more elected members than appointed and nominated members put together. While I accept that that is an important principle which could be for the good, it has at least two dangers: one is that it may increase the size of the GMC to such enormous proportions as to make it almost an impotent body, and that would mean that everything is really decided by the permanent staff. The other question is: How are the members to be elected? On this, as I have said, the Bill gives us no guidanc whatsoever. The doctors will presumably be circulated with a list of candidates, almost none of whom they will know personally or will even have heard of. It leaves the door wide open for one section of the profession to canvass heavily for its own candidates which it wants to see on the GMC while ignoring all the others.

I am going to be quite blunt. The only professional body which has the organisation to do that and which is able to command the necessary publicity is the British Medical Association; and it has done this in GMC elections for many years, although the elected members were then comparatively few compared with what they will be in this new set-up. I am not saying that the BMA is hoping for this, but it could mean, either now or in the future, that the British Medical Association really has control over the GMC and that the profession would be regulated by the BMA and not by the General Medical Council. In my view, this would be a disaster. In saying that, I mean no harm to the BMA which I acknowledge has, in many respects, done a great deal of good for the profession. But, in my view, it is too heavily involved in medical politics and disputes with the Government to have such overriding power put into its hands.

It is clear from paragraphs 392 to 400 of their report that the Merrison Committee recognised this danger. They suggested various safeguards, including their recommendation of the single transferable vote as the method of election, and that each candidate should be allowed to circulate a very short account of his own career and the reasons why he thought he could do good work on the GMC. Not a word of this appears in the Bill, so that, once again, I bring it to the notice of all who may study the deliberations of this House; and this seems to me to be the only way of doing so.

I do not know whether I can give the noble Lord, Lord Platt, a satisfactory answer to what he has said. As he will know only too well, the Bill sets out quite clearly who is responsible for appointing members, for nominating members and for electing members. As I understand the situation, the noble Lord is concerned about the position of the elected members and the procedure that is to be adopted.

The difficulty that one encounters in the Bill is that a good deal is left to the General Medical Council—this I accept—for them to consider the situation, to lay down procedures and, as the noble Lord rightly pointed out, to embody those procedures in an order which must come before your Lordships' House, subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. So that if there is anything in the order which is not acceptable to Members of either House, then appropriate steps can be taken.

All I can say is that I will draw my right honourable friend's attention to what the noble Lord has said. If the noble Lord feels that he has any comments about which he would like to let my right honourable friend know, then I am sure that my right honourable friend will be glad to have them, because we are just as anxious as anyone else to see that this is done correctly, in order that we can get a GMC constituted in the way that every-body wants. But I do not think that I can take the matter any further than that.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clauses 2 to 4 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 2:

After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley in this Amendment. I think he was quite right in his prologue to the Amendment as such, to set out his reasons for the whole series of Amendments which he has on the Marshalled List. It has helped to set them in the context of Merrison as a whole. As the noble Lord has rightly pointed out to your Lordships, this is a major Amendment because it could conceivably impinge upon the Title of the Bill, and therefore Amendment No. 16 is linked with it. I think it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I did not further quote Merrison at length. My noble friend has made a very substantial argument, and therefore we look forward to further contributions.

It is probably most unwise of a layman to express any opinion on a matter of this kind, but in a few words supporting the Amendment I should just like to say that I have always felt very sorry for doctors. For some years I was chairman of the Professional Conduct Committee of the Bar Council. Any Member of the Bar, young or old, can go to the Professional Conduct Committee and ask what his duty is in certain events and ask them to give him a ruling, and they are bound to do so. If there is not going to be a meeting in time before he has to take some action, the chairman is bound to give him a ruling and, although it is only the Benchers of the Inns of Courts who can take disciplinary action against a barrister, there is no known case where they have ever taken any disciplinary proceedings against a barrister who has done something which the Professional Conduct Committee told him to do.

I understand that the situation has always been very different for doctors. As I understand it, if they go and ask the British Medical Association, they are told "This is not a matter for us, it is a matter for the GMC". If they ask the GMC, they are told, "We are not here to give advice. If you do something we shall strike you off, but we are not here to tell you whether you can or cannot". I remember a doctor client of mine, an ear, nose and throat specialist, who became very interested in plastic surgery and cosmetic surgery and who felt that in many cases for women, in particular, who had been born with some unhappy feature, it really altered their whole lives. Being an enthusiast, he wrote a book about it, and with his patients' permission he included photographs "before" and "after". If he had asked the BMA whether that might be advertising they would have said, "We cannot tell you; you must ask the GMC". If he had asked the GMC, they would have said, as I understand it, "It is not for us to give advice". In fact he published the book and was struck off. So I have always felt that in relation, for example, to the Bar, doctors are in a very unhappy position.

Difficult questions can arise in all professions, sometimes very suddenly. I remember on one occasion when I was chairman a young man coming out of court at lunchtime. He was acting against somebody who had been his client many years before in a matter which had no relation whatever to the case he was in. Suddenly, and quite unexpectedly, it turned out that the earlier proceedings might be relevant and he wanted to know during the lunch interval whether he ought to return his brief; should he tell the judge and, if so, should he ask to see him in his private room or should he do it in court. I remember a young man who had advised a widow whose very rich husband had cut her out of his will altogether, so that she was prima facie entitled to a grant under the Family Inheritance Act, and he advised that it was a good case and she would get a grant, he thought, between £X and £Y. Proceedings had to be started by a certain date. After the date had expired he received instructions to settle a written statement of claim, so he had to advise his client that he was very sorry but it was no use now. What he wanted to know was this: was it his duty to his client to say in the Opinion that, although in the events which had happened she had now no good claim, she had a perfectly good claim against her solicitors for damages for negligence?

In every profession there are difficult cases of one kind and another where one may not know what is the right thing to do. I have always felt that it is a great thing for every barrister, whether young or old, however simple or difficult the point may be, that he can always obtain authoritative guidance. I am afraid that has been absent in general in the medical profession.

I am sympathetic to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, in his desire to extend the scope of this Bill and to see implemented more of the recommendations in the Merrison Report. At the same time, however, I accepted the argument which was put so powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, at Second Reading, to the effect that we must not delay the Bill but must get it on the Statute Book. I was also inclined to accept his clear undertaking (as I thought) to see to it that further legislation was introduced fairly soon to deal with other matters. But I sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, in his desire to extend the scope of the Bill.

However, I am bound to say that in regard to this Amendment I have certain reservations. It seems to me that to insert this clause in this way amounts almost to an open invitation to the General Medical Council to "jump the gun" on a number of decisions on matters which perhaps it might be better were decided elsewhere. With the greatest possible respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, I do not think the parallel between the Bar Council and the GMC is—

I should like to ask the noble Lord where one should go for the intermediary location which should be there to stop a direct appeal to, possibly, the General Medical Council, and who is there to advise accordingly? From the legal point of view one understands that the noble and learned Lord could have a solicitor attend to this matter and to advise as to how to proceed. From a medical point of view, is the person who is concerned in such a position that someone can report him? Who is that someone? And is there a means of approaching the GMC or whoever is concerned directly?

If the noble Lord will allow me I will deal with those points as I come to them. Of course it is important that doctors, like everyone else, should have sources of advice and help in what can be very difficult situations. But I was trying to say to your Lordships that in my opinion the Bar Council and the GMC are not parallel, they are almost perpendicular. With respect, the Bar Council is a professional organisation which is wholly under professional control, whereas the GMC (established, I believe, under the Medical Act 1858) was established primarily to exercise public functions rather than purely professional functions.

I think the noble and learned Lord said that, if doctors ask the BMA for advice on matters of this kind, they say, "This is nothing to do with us; it is a matter for the GMC". With respect that is not the case. Doctors seeks advice from the BMA almost daily, and the Ethical Committee of the BMA constantly give advice to doctors in very difficult situations. To quote one example, to do with doctors appearing on television, the use of the name and the circumstances under which regular appearances on television could be taken as advertising in a professional respect: the BMA gave detailed advice in general to doctors on that matter, and they gave specific advice to individual doctors whenever they sought that advice. So I think it is fair to say that there are opportunities for advice.

It may be that there should be others. But I am not entirely sure that it is the business of the GMC to do this, because in respect of disciplinary matters, it seems to me that very often the GMC is acting on matters which are already decided by the courts. There are many matters which arise which are controversial and difficult and in regard to which doctors may have to exercise their minds and decide how to behave, but which are sometimes not decided. I am not at all sure that all these matters should be decided by the GMC. If I may give an example, take the case of Dr. Alec Bourne and abortion many years ago. He tested the law by carrying out a procedure and testing it in the courts. Following the decision taken in the courts, the GMC itself interpreted the law differently in relation to other acts or complaints which were parallel and related to that.

Presently we shall perhaps be faced with questions about euthanasia. I am not at all sure that the GMC is the body which should decide what should be the law relating to that matter. We have been waiting for many years for debates on the report of the Brodrick Committee on death certification, the whole question of the decision of the moment of death, particularly in relation to the taking of human organs or tissue for transplantation purposes. It is a matter of immense importance which will have to be finally and clearly decided in due course, but I think it will have to be decided by Parliament and by the courts and not necessarily just by the GMC.

I sympathise with the motives behind this Amendment. I think that doctors need guidance, but I am not at all sure that it would be wise to insert into this Bill what amounts to an invitation to the GMC to take decisions on a variety of matters which are perhaps not already decided, and which perhaps ought to be decided in other places.

I should like to add my support to my noble friend's Amendment. In the many years in which I have been in public life, in one place and another, have never had any experience in local government, and I have never had any real experience in any professional organisation. But I have learned over these 38 years that when a matter of this importance is expressly stated in such admirable terms as in the Amendment that was moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley—I always used this technique in another place and I hope I may be allowed to use it in your Lordships' House—it is quite important that as much support as can be gathered from individual Members should be put on the record. I am not going to do more than say that I accept the wide experience and the tremendous support which my noble friend has had from very knowledgeable and very highly respected bodies. I accept the point about the timetable, which is a very important problem, but I think it very necessary to start in the way that my noble friend suggested. Therefore, I am delighted to support his Amendment, and I hope the noble Lord who is going to reply will feel the same way as I do. I therefore beg to support the Amendment.

I am in some difficulty, and I think I must be perfectly frank with your Lordships. The first part of the noble Lord's speech in moving this Amendment was in fact not related to the Amendment at all; it was, if he will not mind my saying so, a Second Reading speech, which was out of order. I do not want to fall into the trap of replying to that, because then I, too, would be out of order. What I want to say is that at Second Reading I made it perfectly clear on behalf of the Government that this was a limited Bill seeking to do one or two things, the main one being to bring about facilities whereby the General Medical Council could be reconstituted and perhaps more representative. Most of the legislation so far as this Bill is concerned is directed towards that end.

The noble Lord complained up to a point about the timelag, but he was honest enough to say that the profession itself is far from being in complete agreement on some of these matters, and on a lot of the matters which are not before your Lordships today and will not be before your Lordships until we have a second Bill. One can only hope that the profession itself, as well as the other bodies we have to consult, will by that time have a real measure of agreement among themselves.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that it looked as if the second Bill would not appear for about the next three years. The thought horrifies me: it horrifies the Government. The Government do not want to wait three years; they do not want to wait two years. But it does not depend entirely upon the Government. It depends on all the bodies that have to be consulted, not least among them the medical profession, seeing whether there can be some unanimity among them. So let me say here and now that there will be no delay so far as the Government are concerned in introducing a second Bill, but it does not rest entirely upon the Government.

The next thing I want to say, before replying to the Amendment, is this. I think I ought to say this—not because I want to limit discussion; I have no power to do that and your Lordships would take me to task if I attempted to do that, but I think your Lordships ought to know that since the Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I have met on a number of occasions and we have had a number of telephone calls. There is a very real measure of agreement between us on all his Amendments. I think I can say—and he can correct me if I am wrong—that we have come to a very real working arrangement as far as these Amendments are concerned. Some of them we shall accept in principle. Others will be withdrawn; I think that is the intention of the noble Lord. I think I ought to mention this because since Second Reading I have re-read the whole of the speeches made then, so have my advisers, and we really have, as T think Lord Hunt will agree, made a sincere and sustained effort to meet him on all matters which he has raised in his Amendments. I mention this because perhaps I could ask the noble Lord to indicate, at the end of each Amendment he moves, what he is prepared to do in the light of what the Government are prepared to do.

So far as this Amendment, No. 2, is concerned, the Government accept in principle what is intended by the Amendment. However, obviously the Government seek the advice of Parliamentary Counsel. We have been told that the present wording is really not sufficient, not explicit enough and does not define what it really intends—if we know the intention. For example, it talks about:

"give guidance to the medical profession on all matters".

What does "all matters" mean? Does it mean that the General Medical Council will be able to give advice on all matters, for example relating to the private lives of doctors if they go wrong? That aspect must be examined.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, accepts that it is drafted too widely. I should like to ask him whether he would be good enough to withdraw the Amendment in the light of the several discussions that we have had, on my undertaking that we shall get Parliamentary draftsmen to look into this. I would say in relation to this Amendment, as I shall say at the appropriate time in relation to various other Amendments, that if this course is followed then I should be very happy to show him the wording which, after legal advice, we think is the suitable wording, in order to get his observations and views. If he accepts, we would be very happy for the noble Lord himself to put down the Amendment in his name rather than follow the usual pattern whereby the Government do it in their name. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, has done most of the work. However, as I have said, there is no disagreement in principle. It is the drafting which we think is too wide and we ask him to withdraw the Amendment on that understanding.

In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell has said, I am very happy indeed to withdraw this Amendment subject to the help of Parliamentary Counsel and Parliamentary draftsmen. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his suggestion that I should see the Amendment which they produce before the Report stage. I thank the noble Lord.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 agreed to.

On Question, whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill:

Clause 6 affects professional misconduct and criminal offences. It is a particular area where legal advice has been taken by the profession, and I understand from the British Medical Association that it is still not entirely happy with the drafting of this clause. The Association is in some difficulty here and therefore we have not put down an Amendment which deals with its particular problem. However, I should like to mention the background so that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can have some advance notice should we wish to put down an Amendment at the Report stage. Clause 6(1) says:

"the Committee may, if they think fit, direct—

(iii) that his registration shall be conditional on his compliance, during such period not exceeding three years as may be specified in the direction, with such requirements so specified as the Committee think fit to impose for the protection of members of the public or in his interests."

Those last four words, "or in his interests" are the words which worry the British Medical Association. It arises in this way. Professional misconduct and that whole area naturally will concern the Committee which deals with such matters. However, the new Health Committee which is being set up under the Bill had no remit in 1969. The 1969 Act coupled together the questions mentioned in the particular clause to which I am referring. If it be that those words "or in his interests" are incorrectly placed in Clause 6(1), we shall return to it. Those same words are repeated in Clause 7 which deals with unfitness to practise through illness. In that respect the British Medical Association feels that those words are entirely correctly placed in that clause.

However, once again under Clause 8 where power to order immediate suspension after a finding of professional misconduct or unfitness to practise is mentioned, there appears to be a duplication or carry-over from the 1969 Act. These are areas on which legal advice is currently being taken and we may wish to return to them at a later stage.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. I wonder whether he would allow me to look at Hansard tomorrow so that I can study what he has said in detail and whether he would wish me to take advice also from our legal department, and write to him on this matter—I will try to do it quickly—giving him the Government's view?

I would be very much obliged. I think that it would reduce the amount of communications if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was willing to do so with the assistance of the Department. I am most grateful.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 14 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 3:

After Clause 14, to insert the following new clause—

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley in his Amendment. Some of our difficulties in this Bill, as in other Bills, are due to over-consolidation. Your Lordships are aware that this whole area of legislation has over a century behind it and the first Act of 1858, followed by others—in particular the Act of 1886—brought about the need in 1956 for the Consolidation Act. My noble friend is attempting, quite rightly, to make variations to Section 10(1) of the Medical Act 1956, to which he has referred. The problem is one of rigidity in that Act. When the Joint Committee on Consolidation produced its work which led to the 1956 Act, all the former rigidities of many Acts were added into one. They were not amended; they were consolidated.

This area is one of many exceptionally difficult areas of legislation. I do not know an area more difficult because, of course, during the last century and a quarter the advance of the medical profession has simply been enormous. So the pure consolidation of the Acts of Parliament would have been unsatisfactory, to say the least. Nevertheless, from a legislative point of view—and in this area I am a novice—I should like to quote what the Renton Committee has said about it because it certainly strikes a chord with me. It is to be found in Cmnd. 6053. That Committee quotes a former Sovereign, King Edward VI, in the 16th century when he said:

"I would wish that … the superfluous and tedious statutes were brought into one sum together, and made more plain and short, to the intent that men might better understand them."

To that I think we might all say: "Hear, Hear!". But the difficulty is one of the advance of medical knowledge and medical education in this particular field. I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Hunt of Fawley is perfectly correct in bringing forward an enabling Amendment in this manner.

This is another Amendment which I have discussed in some detail with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley. He is aware of the fact that the Government accept this Amendment in principle, but, having taken advice, I must say that we have to look at it from the point of view of wording. Since this Amendment was first tabled, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, has substituted the word, "succession" for the word, "appointed", as he did in his first Amendment. That substitution does not make sense in this context as in the wording of the Bill the membership of the education committee is chosen by the General Medical Council and, therefore, it cannot in practical terms be set up until after the succession day. There is, therefore, no point in giving this committee these new duties on the succession day. We will, however, instruct Parliamentary Counsel that it should be given these new powers as soon as it is set up; that is, on the appointed day for the education committee. The other change in the wording of this Amendment is the substitution of the words "The Medical Acts" for "this Act"; this is a technical point, but at first glance it seems sensible to us.

Subsection (1) (a) gives the education committee a duty to promote high standards of medical education and to co-ordinate all stages of medical education. Both of these new duties were recommended in the Merrison Report and it had been the Government's intention to consider them in the second stage of their implementation of the report. Our only reservation about subsection (1) (b) is that as it is at present worded it would not allow for dropping the qualifying examination which may be considered desirable, if initially only on an experimental basis. At Report stage we should be prepared to amend this in the spirit of the noble Lord's Amendment.

May I just pass on to subsection (2). It is a minor Amendment which will allow anyone appointed by the General Medical Council, whether or not he is a member of the Council, to visit medical schools. At present members of the Council are expressly excluded from being appointed to visit medical schools and, under the Bill as now drafted, members of the education committee but not members of the Council who are not members of the education committee are excluded from being so appointed. Under this Amendment there would be no restriction of this kind on any member of the Council. This is something we shall have to look at. As I have already said to the noble Lord, we accept this in principle, and if he is willing to withdraw this Amendment we shall endeavour to redraft the Amendment along the lines he has indicated—which of course I shall show him before the Report stage.

I am grateful to the Government for their interest in this Amendment, and am very happy to withdraw it, on the understanding that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the Parliamentary Counsel and draftsman, will reword it in the way they think right.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Insert the following new clause—

This is another Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, and I have discussed. This is one which the Government accept in principle, but again the wording is such that we have to let Parliamentary Counsel look at it. In fact, Parliamentary Counsel is doing so—I will not say at this precise moment—and I have known about these Amendments for some days. We are dealing with this. If the noble Lord feels able to withdraw this—as I say, we agree in principle—we shall see what we can do to make it acceptable from a legal point of view. I give him the undertaking that I gave him on the others, that I shall certainly let him see it and we can discuss it, and if the noble Lord is so disposed he can put it down for Report.

Before I sit down, may I say that I hope that the Committee will feel that I am acting quite properly in saying what I am going to say—of course it is subject to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wants to say—that the next four Amendments, Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, concern matters dealing with a complex situation. They deal with the registration of doctors, the limited registration of overseas doctors, and with the progress from limited registration to full registration. I have pointed out to the noble Lord that these will be matters which the Government cannot contemplate including in this Bill, which will have to be included in the next Bill. If the noble Lord accepts that, then I wonder whether he would feel justified in withdrawing this and Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 as, from the Government's point of view, no useful purpose would be served in proceeding with them?

Before the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, replies to the Minister, it might not be inappropriate if I said a word about pre-registration posts, and in doing so I wish to draw the attention of noble Lords to another aspect of the whole question of pre-registration posts which may be causing some anxiety to young doctors or medical students who are not yet qualified. I say at once that I welcome the Amendment and I am glad to hear the response it has received; I am therefore in no way criticising the Amendment.

Perhaps we should not forget the history of pre-registration posts. It is of course entirely true that medical practice becomes more and more complex as the years go by so that an ordinary qualification, received when one has sat one's qualifying examination, cannot really be regarded as a licence to practise any kind of discipline in any kind of place in any kind of way. Thus, restrictions had to be imposed, and that I accept entirely; there was a need to make absolutely sure that young doctors had training additional to that provided in their ordinary medical school or university, and the best possible place for that training was, of course, in occupying what are called pre-registration posts in hospitals. These were house posts as house surgeons, house physicians and so on where they were working alongside their colleagues and medical teachers and where they were acquiring greater knowledge and experience.

However, it is not altogether a coincidence that the move to make pre-registration posts compulsory arose at about the time when, because of the extremely poor pay of house jobs in hospitals, it was getting harder all the time to get doctors to take those posts. This applied in particular, I regret to say, to the teaching hospitals. When I qualified, the pay of a house surgeon at Manchester Royal Infirmary was 10s. 6d. a week. It is true that in certain municipal hospitals the pay was much higher and I have a letter written by members of the medical establishment, deans of medical schools and others, to the medical superintendents of a number of municipal hospitals asking them to reduce the pay of house surgeons because at that time they were not able to recruit house surgeons to take the posts in teaching hospitals.

That is history, and I am not for a moment saying that we have slave labour, with pre-registration posts, though they are posts which young doctors must take in order ultimately to get their full licence to practise. And therefore I say that, along with this Amendment and all the provisions that we make for improving pre-registration posts, perhaps placing more restrictions on young doctors to ensure that they are fully and adequately trained, we must at the same time remember that we have a real duty to protect the interests of those who will have to take these posts, because, once one removes market forces from the whole question of the recruitment of labour, one gets into a situation where difficulties can arise. I simply remind noble Lords that difficulties did arise and that they could arise again if we are not vigilant. I support the Amendment but I believe that, in supporting it, and before proceeding further with pre-registration posts, we must keep our eyes well open and watch for the interests of those who are controlled by laws such as this.

Before we leave the Amendment I would say, because I was a member of the Royal Commission on Medical Education, how much I support the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Fawley, in his proposals. They are in accordance with what the Royal Commission was thinging at that time. I understand the noble Lord's Amendments fully but I also fully understand the Government's reply to them. I should like that to be understood.

I was about to mention to my four Amendments Nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8, to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, referred.

I am sure that the Committee would like to know at this stage whether the noble Lord intends to withdraw the Amendment which is at present before the Committee.

Yes; but I have a brief comment to make about it first. I know that the Government are adamant about these Amendments; they will not accept them because of various legal and other complications. I was rather hoping to put to the Committee the arguments in favour and against some of them; but it will save a great deal of time if I do not do so, though I know that Lord Wells-Pestell will enlarge on these legal problems later. I put them forward as probing Amendments and I do not intend to press them. I hope that some of the difficulties may be ironed out and that it may be possible, perhaps on Report, to introduce one or two clauses about the registration of overseas-qualified doctors. In the meantime, I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move Amendment No. 9:

Before Clause 15, insert the following new clause—

When my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell comes to reply, perhaps he will make it quite clear that this item of the retention fee is deductible from every practice as part of the expenses.

We may be able to deduct it in terms of income tax but that would take up a very small part of it. If you are paying £50 a year and out of that £50 you are allowed to deduct income tax—£15 or something like that—that does not compensate you at all. I hope my noble friend the Minister will not take that line. What the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, said is true. The General Medical Council exists to protect the public, and it would be wrong to ask the profession to foot the whole Bill for maintaining a Council whose job it is to protect the public. The public as represented by the Government, the taxpayer, should make some contribution towards it. I am not suggesting that the profession should not make a reasonable contribution, but I feel quite strongly that the profession should pay part of the cost of running the General Medical Council and the State should pay a certain part. I am not going to say what proportion each should pay. I am not prepared to suggest that because I can show on my income tax form the sum of £50 which I have paid as one of the expenses of my practice. It may be suggested that that is good enough. It is not.

Of all the Amendments before your Lordships' House, I feel on this one as if I am in a kind of no-man's land filled with mines and tripwires. The experience I had of getting out of minefields was many years ago and I am sure I have lost my skill in doing so. But let us try to look dispassionately at the situation This new clause stipulates that any increased expenditure on the part of the General Medical Council which arises from implementing the provisions of this Bill is not to be met from an increase in doctor's annual retention fees. At the moment the General Medical Council derives all its income from doctors' fees, some coming from retention fees and the rest from initial registration fees and the charges which it makes for any tests which it administers. The Government feel that the new clause would be unworkable, that it would not be possible to calculate the increased cost to which the Bill will give rise given annually increasing administrative costs, or to work out the additional expenditure which will be incurred by the new enlarged Council, and the three committees concerned with fitness to practise which it will have in place of the present two.

I do not know whether this new clause is designed to try to commit the Government to making a contribution to the finances of the General Medical Council. However, as it stands, the wording would not do this, but would leave it open to the General Medical Council to raise the extra money by any means other than increasing the annual fee—that is, by increasing the initial registration fee or through fund-raising activities.

The question of the Government's contribution to the finances of the General Medical Council was mentioned on Second Reading, and I pointed out that this raised a very important question of principle; namely, the independence of the statutory body which regulates the medical profession. I do not know, and the Government do not know, whether the General Medical Council would want this. It is by no means clear that a Government contribution to the fees of the General Medical Council, which might be seen as threatening its independence, would be universally welcomed, nor can we commit the Government to such a contribution. Our advice is that the Government do not need specific power in legislation to make such a contribution to the General Medical Council, and that might meet the noble Lord's point. Precedent suggests that if the Government decided to contribute they would have to specify clearly the size of the contribution in the annual Estimates which are approved by Parliament when it formally votes money from the Exchequer by way of the Annual Appropriation Act. If at any time in the future the Government decide that they wish to contribute to the finances of the General Medical Council, they are free to do so.

At this stage, I should have thought that this is a matter that ought to be left for discussion with the bodies concerned. I hope that the noble Lord will feel that this is a reasonable line to take and that it is not necessary at this stage to press this Amendment.

I do not want to be mischievous, but I recall that, when we were talking about the appointment of lay members to the General Medical Council, the Government were quite adamant in saying that they needed to appoint the Chief Medical Officer to the GMC, or, at least, that they needed to be free to do so. They did not regard the appointment of the Chief Medical Officer to the GMC as undermining its independence. But as soon as the suggestion is that they should make a contribution to the costs of running the GMC, the question arises as to whether making that contribution would undermine the independence of the GMC. That is not very logical.

I should have thought it was perfectly logical. We are talking about two entirely different things. I am saying that, so far as financing the General Medical Council is concerned, this is a matter which the GMC itself might not want because it might feel that it would affect its independence. I am saying that this is what the GMC might or might not feel. The appointment of Chief Medical Officers to the GMC would be for one purpose and one purpose only, and that is that they have a peculiar and special contribution to make to the deliberations of the GMC.

Now that I have initiated what one might call the first instalment of what I am quite sure is going to be a lengthy and, perhaps, sometimes acrimonious discussion, I am well satisfied. At least I have been told by the noble Lord what is possible. We shall just have to wait and see what happens. Before I conclude, however, I must say that this is going to be a matter which will come back to your Lordships' House and to another place, because it is going to be a matter which will be one of public controversy, and certainly of controversy within the medical profession. So I am content to have raised it; and, with that and the noble Lord's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 18, line 23, leave out from ("the") to end of line 25 and insert ("General Medical Council Act 1978.")

The Government are not happy with this Amendment, and, briefly, I will say why in the hope that my reasons will satisfy my noble friend Lord Segal. As he quite rightly pointed out, the Amendment is intended to change the name of this Bill, when enacted, to the General Medical Council Act; and, if I remember rightly, this was a point which my noble friend made on Second Reading.

The contents of this Bill—and I think we must keep this in the forefront of our minds—go far wider than the inner workings of the General Medical Council. They give the Council the means to the wider end of regulating the medical profession. Although Clauses 1, 2 and 3 deal with the constitution of the General Medical Council, Clause 4 deals with the 1927 Agreement with the Republic of Ireland, which is concerned with the free movement of doctors between our two countries. Clauses 5 to 13 deal with professional conduct and fitness to practise, giving the General Medical Council powers to act in relation to sick doctors and professional misconduct. They are thereby concerned with the regulation of the profession, as is Clause 14, which gives the Council's education committee powers in relation to medical education; and the remaining clauses are supplementary. We feel that, because the Bill does not involve merely the General Medical Council but involves also the universities and education—and I imagine that it also involves the Royal Colleges—it really would not be suitable if, after enactment, it were to be known as the General Medical Council Act. In the circumstances, we feel that the Short Title "Medical Bill" which would become "Medical Act", is more appropriate.

I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell for explaining the wider implications of this Bill and pointing out some of the other bodies which are necessarily involved. This is, of course, perfectly obviously a probing Amendment; and I am quite satisfied wish my noble friend's explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 11:

Page 18, line 27, after ("day") insert ("(not being later than one year after this Act shall have received the Royal Assent)").

I should like to support the noble and learned Lord on this Amendment. I wish to support the general principle that he has just enunciated, which is an important one, but also I should like to support him with regard to this Bill. I accepted the undertaking given by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on Second Reading, that all possible haste would be taken with regard to the oustanding matters contained in the Merrison Report—and there are some matters which cannot wait for very long; in particular, I underline the recommendations with regard to overseas doctors. They are very urgent and some other matters are urgent; but I cannot see how we can have those urgently if there is to be much delay and dallying with bringing this Bill into force.

I am sure that a period of 12 months is adequate. If it is too long, so be it. Nothing is lost. But I think that there is everything to be gained by making sure that all possible haste is taken in getting this Bill, when it becomes an Act, on to the Statute Book, so that we can proceed further on the very many urgent matters oustanding and which, in part, depend on it and which cannot proceed until the Act is in full operation. For many of them, we will need the full co-operation of the newly-constituted General Medical Council. Any delay in the implementation of this Act will inevitably mean delay in the other matters which the noble Lord has already accepted are urgent.

I sense that the Committee has a good deal of sympathy with what my noble and learned friend has said. He is quite right to point out what has happened in respect of other Bills in the past. We are not unmindful of the fact that there is often considerable delay between the passing of an Act and its implementation. But I would ask the Committee, and in particular my noble and learned friend, to consider what is involved here. There is the size of the new General Medical Council which has to be determined as well as the respective sizes of the different groups of members: those elected, appointed and nominated. There has to be an electoral scheme which will have to be drawn up and approved by the Privy Council; there has to be an order which will have to be made designating the appointing bodies and determining which of them can choose more than one member and which should choose jointly with another body. An order will have to be made dealing with the necessary incidental and consequential transitional and supplemental provisions which are thought to be necessary, including one terminating the office of existing members of the Council. There is an enormous amount of work to be done.

I can only say that it is the determination of the Government that no time should be lost in doing all this; but I think that, if I put it honestly and bluntly, we do not want our hands tied. It is as simple as that. I do not think that I can put it more frankly. I can give my noble and learned friend the assurance that we are not going to let much grass grow under our feet. We realise that there is a good deal of urgency. As the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has said, we must get one out of the way before we can introduce the other. But to some extent, the work can proceed on the second Bill while the arrangements are being made to implement the first Bill.

I would say to my noble and learned friend that I hope I have given him a satisfactory answer and the assurance that the Government themselves feel just as strongly about getting this on to the Statute Book for a whole variety of reasons. That being the case, I hope that he will feel that he has aired this matter and will probably remind us from time to time, as in the past, as to how much progress is being made.

Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, may I ask my noble friend whether, if I return to this at Report stage with au Amendment of two years, he would accept that?—the principle being that either Parliament decides the limit or the Minister does.

Of course we would consider it, coining not only from my noble and learned friend but from any Member of the Committee. I should certainly like to take this back to my Department and draw attention to what my noble and learned friend has said tonight.

I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Schedules 1 to 4 agreed to.

had given Notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14:

moved Amendment No. 15:

The Government wanted to look at Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14. The noble Lord has not moved them. I wonder whether the noble Lord would feel disposed to withdraw Amendment No. 15. I will give him an undertaking that we will look at Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 and I will report to him, as I will on the other one.

Certainly. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 15.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

moved Amendment No. 16:

Line 1, after ("constitution") insert ("and functions").

As we are looking at Amendment No. 2 which the noble Lord moved—and I said I would come back to him on that—it is necessary to look at No. 16. This we will do. I will let the noble Lord have our views and observations at the same time as we discuss the other matters that he has been good enough to allow us to look into.

I am happy to withdraw that Amendment on those conditions. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the present restrictions on communications between prisoners and the general public, particularly in the form of letters and visits. The noble Earl said: I rise to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Originally I intended to deal with prisoners' visits as well as prisoners' correspondence, but correspondence itself will keep me busy for any period that the House will find appropriate. I hope that other speakers will deal with any aspect of communications between prisoners and the general public which seem to them significant.

I am listening carefully to my noble friend, my Lords. I am not sure in which particular direction he would like me to point my head, but he has the whole of my attention.

My Lords, I thought that the noble Lord had turned away to study some more attractive issue. At any rate, it is expecting rather too much of our excellent Minister to demand that he should make an announcement to that effect without further reflection. Naturally, I hope he will go as far as he can. As no doubt the House is aware, we in Britain in recent times have been found guilty on one occasion of breaching the European Convention of Human Rights in regard to prisoners' correspondence. Unless our Government act quickly a still worse fate is likely to befall us in the near future. Early in the New Year seven cases—I think that is the latest figure; they have been boiled down from a good many others—are coming before the European Commission of Human Rights. All of them deal with prisoners' correspondence and all of them come from this country.

There seems little doubt—I do not think that the Home Office can seriously contest this—that our rules in this country regarding prisoners' correspondence are more restrictive—I would say much more restrictive—than those which generally prevail in Western Europe. My first submission must be that we should take urgent steps to put our own house in order of our own free will before we are forced to do so under pressure from decisions by the European Commission, and it may be the European Court.

I must pass from generalities to criticisms of our actual practice. Anyone who tries to take up the cudgels for a prisoner whose correspondence has been interfered with or suppressed, is overwhelmed—and this is not the only area in which this happens—by the Home Office Ministers—bless their hearts!—with a stream of complicated references to prison rules and regulations of one kind or another. The principal Statute affecting prisoners is the 1952 Prison Act. The principal rules are contained in the Prison Rules 1964, as amended at various times. There are, I believe, about 100 such rules with sub-headings and so on, and one reaches a total of rules and subordinate rules of perhaps 450 of one kind or another. But we have only just begun to describe the maze of regulations which are not available to the public. The Prison Department produces a large number of standing orders. Incidentally, in an important speech made to the New Bridge—of which I am President—last year, the former Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, said that he was going to investigate the standing orders many of which he appeared to think—and I agree with him—had become inadequate. A question which I will put in passing to the noble Lord—of which he has had notice—is how far in the 18 months or so that have passed since then have the Home Office proceeded with this investigation of the standing orders?

The standing orders are not by any means the end of it. They are amended and elaborated in a further series of circular instructions. I am told—I have not counted them myself—that the section dealing with communications alone contains some 500 separate instructions about how the relevant prison rules should be applied. These various standing orders and circular instructions are classified as secret, but even now we have not reached the end of it. A further series of procedures are set out in still more secret documents such as those in the governor's Handbook, and I have not obtained a copy of that.

The prisoner is kept in total ignorance of these regulations. His only right, if one can call it a right, is to be provided with:

"information in writing about those provisions of the rules and other matters which it is necessary that he should know".

New prisoners should be given—they are not always given—a bare Home Office summary of those parts of the rules which are thought to be applicable to them. In any controversy about a prisoner's right to send or receive letters, the prisoner will be told in the first place that he has no rights and that these are just privileges. Even passing that aside, he will be struggling blindfold if he is trying to discover the actual regulations which are being operated and with which he is supposed to comply.

I must leave the legal pursuit of these matters to my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. All who are concerned with the welfare of prisoners will insist that much more information should be given to prisoners; for example, in regard to correspondence—though that is only one issue—about the rules with which they are supposed to comply. We must insist that the standing orders and circular instructions should be made available to the general public, including journalists. In theory, these standing orders and circular instructions are available in the Library of the House of Commons. That is not always so in practice. They have not up till now been available in the Library of the House of Lords. The blame may be shifted this way or that, but in fact they were not available until about yesterday in the House of Lords. I do not know how far they are available at this precise moment, but they have not been available here previously and they have certainly not been available to the public.

Turning to the regulations themselves, I shall take for the purposes of illustration a reply which was sent to me recently by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to a letter which I submitted on behalf of a Mr. Roy Carne, who was then in prison but is now a free man. Mr. Came complained about the stopping of seven of his letters. In one case, the Home Office offered an apology for an error of judgment. That happens so seldom that I think we should rejoice over "the one sinner who repented": at any rate it was a notable event. In the other cases there was no apology and the Home Office stood their ground.

I shall take one answer given by the Home Office to one of the complaints. I was informed by the Minister that the letter from Mr. Carne to Mr. Kilroy-Silk was stopped because it contained a complaint about the prison treatment which Mr. Carne had not first ventilated. The House will be aware that Mr. Kilroy-Silk is a gifted young Member of the House of Commons with a special interest in penal reform; so if a letter cannot be sent to him it cannot be sent to anybody. The reference there is to the ventilation of a matter in prison, but in my experience a prisoner is prevented from communicating with a Member of Parliament unless the matter has been investigated, and of course investigation may take quite a few months.

The first question I must ask the noble Lord is whether I am informing the House correctly about this. What is the present rule about communication of a complaint to a Member of Parliament? I want to be sure what the facts are and what investigation has to take place before a prisoner is allowed to communicate with a Member of Parliament. Whatever the present position is, I would urge very strongly that a minimum improvement which would carry us a little way towards the European standard would be complete freedom on the part of a prisoner to write to a Member of either House of Parliament without any restriction.

That is only part of what is necessary. No long ago, we were severely condemned, as I said at the beginning, in the Golder case for restrictions placed on communications between the prisoners and their legal advisers: that is something the Government must know more about than I do. Since then, minimal changes have been made. Constitutional lawyers appear to be agreed that the adverse decision of the European Commission was interpreted by the authorities here in the most limited manner possible. I strongly urge, without prejudice to the wider issue, total abolition of suppression and censorship. Prisoners should be completely free to communicate with their lawyers.

Finally, I come to the general issue of the censorship and suppression of prison letters to and from the ordinary public. I say "censorship and suppression" because one can inspect letters without suppressing them. One can imagine the prison authorities being left with a right in some circumstances to open and inspect letters without their having a right to suppress them coming in or going out. It could be argued that, in some circumstances at least, prison authorities should be allowed to open the letters of prisoners if they have grounds for suspicion that contraband, drugs and so on, might be smuggled in.

However, I should have thought that in principle we could all agree that it was desirable for prisoners to maintain and develop the fullest possible range of human contacts while incarcerated. I am sure that noble Lords who speak later who have had a lot of experience about this will dwell on that point, and, when I talk of maintaining and developing relationships and friendships, I am thinking most of all of developing a family life. Many prisoners feel very much inhibited in writing to their families when some prison officer with whom they live cheek by jowl is allowed to investigate their most intimate correspondence. Above all, I am arguing that prisoners should not have their letters suppressed, even if in some circumstances it was thought essential to look at them.

There is another aspect to this. I shall not go into it now but perhaps someone else will. There is a restriction on whom you can correspond with, as distinct from what you can say to people or what they can say to you. There is a rule that prisoners cannot correspond with those whom they did not know before going to prison; and although I admit that it is often mitigated, in practice it can operate very harshly, particularly in long-term cases. A prisoner who is in prison for many years is bound to lose contact with many people and with his family—perhaps with everybody he knew before—so if he is not allowed to make any new friends one can take it that he will become more and more isolated.

There are printed regulations which are not available to the public, though some members of the public become aware of them, which restrict the right of prisoners to communicate with the Howard League or the National Council for Civil Liberties. Total communication is not forbidden, but communication with those bodies is very much restricted by regulations at the present time. If we agree in principle—and I should have thought that we must all agree in principle—that the greatest possible freedom of correspondence is in the interests of the prisoner, it surely follows that Home Office Ministers, whoever they may be—and this is said without any reference to personalities—are under an obligation to provide a justification, if they can find one, for any particular act of suppression.

The traditional reasons have been those of security. These, in my experience, are not today taken very seriously by anyone on any side of this argument. Hardly anyone today seems to suppose that prisoners who are really determined to make subversive plans are prevented from doing so by this censorship of letters. I do not think anyone supposes that.

A more serious point may be thought to be the attitudes of the prison staff. Certainly their attitudes cannot be neglected, but I hope and believe they would not wish to exercise a right of veto on any liberalisation. It could be argued that if censorship were abolished the prison staff would be unprotected against malicious comments, but already any prisoner who wishes to indulge in criticism of that kind can do so orally during visits without anybody interfering in any way at all and any visitor can then pass the comment, malicious or otherwise, to the Press if he wishes.

For some years, the authorities have refrained from systematic censorship in the open prisons. From my enquiries in an open prison last week, I believe that the experiment was successful and that the particular problem of defending prison staff did not cause trouble. I am sure that the total burden on the staff would be very much lightened by the abolition of censorship. As I said at the beginning, censorship should be abolished, except where grounds for it can be established in an individual case before an independent tribunal.

I repeat that we must not expect too much from the Minister today, but I hope and believe that we shall not be met with a blank wall of negation. Whether we like it or not, great changes are coming, in this and related fields with the ever-increasing importance of the European Commission for the purpose of penal reform in this and other countries. Let it not be said that we were forced by outside pressure into making these changes. Let us prove, on the contrary, that not for the first time we are capable of giving a lead to Europe in social policy.

My Lords, I am sure that we must all be very interested in the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, this evening. All parties who are concerned with either the prisoners or the victims, as well as the associations involved, will be interested to read the report of what he has said. I am probably completely and utterly out of step with all of your Lordships. As a young boy of 19, my first duty in the Army was to guard hardened criminal soldiers who had gone berserk. My sergeant turned to me and told me to release the prisoners, in order that they could have their afternoon exercise. He said, "At a certain time you will give an order, and those prisoners will go back into their cells". Later I was utterly amazed, because when I gave the order nothing happened. The prisoners bent down their heads, turned away from me and continued walking around.

My sergeant, realising that there was a problem, marched very smartly into the centre of the arena, gave a command in English sprinkled with French, and every single prisoner went back to his cell. Then my sergeant glared at me and said, "Never trust a single prisoner". I was very frightened. That was only one occasion when I had to deal with prisoners. There were others in hospital who were far worse, and I was only 19 when I had to deal with them. So your Lordships may well say to me that I start off on the right leg. I have little sympathy and little sentimentality, and I say that because I was also shot at by certain prisoners.

I can only say to the prison staffs, the wardens and the governors, who look after our prisoners, that they do a magnificently brave job. They can never take their eyes off their prisoners, in case anything should go wrong. Nearly every month we hear of someone breaking out of or being injured in prison. So I speak with a great deal of anxiety. I was amazed to hear the noble Earl begin his speech by talking about getting our house in order, tackling the EEC and the question of human rights. That was different from what I wanted to hear. I wanted to hear what we were going to do about the subject. I do not want to hear about the intellectuals and the visitors, because it is too easy to criticise and too easy to go inside and visit a prisoner. The noble Earl has great experience and visits prisons more often than I do, but, with my minimum of experience, except for having been shot at by several people and being handcuffed to others, I would say that we want to look at this situation a little more closely.

I believe that the prison staff—not you and I—are the ones who really count the people who have to administer the discipline after a prisoner goes inside. It is essential not to undermine the prison staff, but to give them inspiration in their job. I know how lonely it is for a prisoner to be locked up in a cell and to hear the lock go "clink"; it is the most depressing sound that one can hear. I know that most of the time a prisoner is out of touch with the community. But what is he there for? Is he to be kept in a Butlin's holiday camp? Is he there so that we can have sympathy for him? Have we lost our sympathy for those in society whom a prisoner has hurt? We really ought to look at that side. I should not like to take on a warden's job.

I feel that we ought not to look at what the intellectuals have said—and there are many in your Lordships' House who will have sympathy for the parents, the wives and the children; their position is indeed a tragedy, and let there be no doubt about it—but to remember that there are other men and women who leave families behind them in sadness. I should like to look at what the people concerned, the Prison Officers' Association, think. As your Lordships know, they have a general secretary, Mr. Daniel, who takes advice from and listens to the prison staff. He hears their side of the story. It stands to reason that the operation of prison rules represents a fair balance of competing considerations. But what about this idea of freedom of mail? Has anybody considered the outcome if a prisoners' mail did not have be to censored?

My Lords, the noble Viscount is aware that the abolition of censorship is operating in a number of prisons at the present time?

My Lords, that is quite right; but not for those in the higher bracket, such as the IRA. I agree that this happens for the lower bracket in the open prisons; but it does not happen in the top bracket, and that is the danger of this debate tonight. The noble Earl has not mentioned the dangers from those such as members of the IRA. We cannot allow them freedom. They have ruined society and the lives of families. This must not be allowed to happen.

Secondly, I should like to mention what the wardens feel about the mail. Censorship of mail and supervision of visits are obviously necessary in order to prevent the communication of drugs, cash and, above all, escape plans. Furthermore, they help prison officers to know of any domestic upheaval going on within a prison, which could take the form of a prisoner wanting to commit suicide due to depression. So that the mail concerns every aspect of what a prisoner might want to do. What I worry about is that he could even write to his Member of Parliament and enclose a further letter to be sent on to another family. It could be a mischievous letter. It could mean, also, that that letter, unbeknown to the warden or the governor, would result in a problem. It may be that the prison staff would have no knowledge of the letter until a delegation rang up or arrived at the prison doors. That could be embarrassing. Unless there is continued censorship in the case of certain brackets of prisoners—I am not speaking about those in open prisons—I do not believe that lack of censorship of letters is safe.

A third point which the Prison Officers' Association have considered concerns visiting facilities. I understand that these facilities have been improved and that they extend to more than the prescribed half an hour. I believe that to be good. Probably it prevents loneliness being felt by prisoners. However, we are speaking about communications by letter with the outside world. I believe that the intentions of the noble Earl are good, but after my experience I should not like the authority of prison wardens to be undermined as a result of mail being allowed to go outside prison without their knowledge.

The noble Earl made an interesting point regarding human rights. A Mrs. Sarah McCabe, an eminent criminologist at the Oxford University Centre for Criminological Research, believes that:

"the relevant sections of the prison rules are too restrictive".

I think that the noble Earl made this point. I am afraid I cannot agree. There must be rules. Mrs. McCabe went on to say that the prison rules are too restrictive and far too discretionary and a cause of great bitterness to prisoners. I believe that all prisoners are bitter and have vengeance in their hearts; life has gone wrong for them. Mrs. McCabe asks why we do not have a Bill of Rights that applies also to prisoners, with certain specific restrictions which are clearly spelled out when a sentence of imprisonment is imposed. A great deal of work would be involved in looking at the record of each prisoner. And how would such a Bill of Rights be operated in the prisons? An officer would have to deal individually with each prisoner, and there might be a dozen, or 40, or 50 of them. I do not believe that that idea would work. Nor do I believe that it is sensible for prisoners to be given luxuries, or any more than is necessary. I know that it is a lonely life in prison, for the reason which I stated earlier—that once the door lock goes you are an outcast and there is no go-between between you and the outside world. However, I must come back to law and order and to why a prisoner is in prison.

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hale for agreeing to transfer our names on the list of speakers. I have not had the experience of the noble Viscount, Lord Long, but among those who are taking part in this debate I have one unique advantage. I have seen this problem as a visitor; I have also seen it as a prisoner. During the First World War I was in seven prisons and guardrooms: the Tower of London, three prisons in London, Chester Castle, Walton Prison in Liverpool and Lincoln Prison. Therefore I think I can speak with some knowledge of conditions as they were so many years ago.

May I acknowledge at once that there have been changes in the prison system since then. I was the Joint Secretary of the Prison System Inquiry Committee whose recommendations had a considerable effect, particularly the recommendation that the silence rule in prison should be ended. This was a rule whereby a prisoner was never allowed to speak, even to wardens, except on official matters. However, the regulations regarding visits and correspondence have changed very little over the years. We were permitted one visit a month from our families and, necessarily, we spoke about matters of an intimate, domestic character. Our families were carrying on while we were in prison, and during those visits we concentrated on domestic subjects.

The only other visit that we were allowed was from a minister of religion. I had entered myself on the register as an agnostic. The prison authorities were not quite sure what religion that indicated, so I was placed on the list of the Church of England. In most of the prisons I found that the Church of England chaplain was formal, rigid and even distant. At Walton Prison. Liverpool, he was not; he was sincere, humane and deeply emotional. We had three executions while I was in the Liverpool prison and the clergyman who had to go to those executions became a nervous wreck before he had to fulfil his duty. I had almost to strengthen him rather than him strengthening me. Those were the only visits that were allowed. Fortunately, when I went to Lincoln Prison, the Governor was sufficiently aware of theology to put me down for the Unitarian minister as being rather nearer to an agnostic than others, and I was able to have serious, intellectual discussions with him.

The first point I want to make arising from that experience is that today it is very desirable that there should be allowed into prisons not merely visitors from the family, who speak of domestic matters, or ministers of religion, who may or may not be able to discuss wider subjects. There should be a system which allows visitors to go to prisons without even the restrictions which now exist.

There is the restriction that a visitor must have known a prisoner before he was in prison. That applies also to correspondence. I know both men and women who, if they were allowed to go to prisons as visitors, would undoubtedly have a good effect upon the prisoners. I agree that the prisoner should be given the right to say whether that visitor should come or not but I know cases where prisoners have expressed a desire for such a visit and the visitor has not been allowed because he or she has not had knowledge of the prisoner before he was in prison. I know that some of those men and women could only he of value in the rehabilitation of a prisoner if they were allowed to make that visit.

I wish I could convey the psychology which exists in prison. Even in society outside prison classes are inclined to think in terms of "they" and "them"; in prison that becomes the psychology of the entire prison population. It is "we" and "them". "They" are the warders and the authorities above them. I want to say at once that I pay my tribute to the warders. In my day, they were almost as much prisoners as the prisoners themselves and in prison I took some part in the formation of a prison officers' federation. I have the utmost sympathy with the warders but when people are under prison conditions they inevitably feel, as a result of all the restrictions of their life, an antagonism to the personnel which is responsible for that administration.

In my day I described prisons as "crime factories". I welcome all the changes that have been made, including the association of long-term prisoners and the open prisons. But I am not sure that prisons today are not greater crime factories than in my day because of the overcrowding, with two and three in a cell. Their only contact is with each other, talking about crime and about "they" and "them", and the only way in which one can penetrate that psychology is to include contact between the prisoner and those who are valuable in society outside the prison. That is why it is so essential that there should now be greater liberties in correspondence between public service minded people outside prison and the prisoners—and the prisoners and "them".

I shall speak with some difficulty about my second reason for taking part in this debate tonight. I have become a prison visitor without really having had any intention of doing so. I became involved with two IRA prisoners. They were in prison before the new regulations which later on restricted their liberties. They are able to write to me continually. Less than a month ago I visited them in their prison and visited them in the freedom of a small room with a table where we could talk quite freely. The door was open and the warders were outside but we were without such appalling restrictions as one sometimes sees where, as a visitor to a prison, one has to speak through a glass or through a gauze. Because I want to be fair and do not want to claim too much for myself, I can only say this to the House, but I have not the least doubt that that freedom of contact in correspondence and in visits has enabled those two prisoners to develop a new attitude to life which they would not have reached if that freedom had not been allowed.

The noble Earl, Lord Longford, was very modest in the speech with which he introduced this debate. He is a much more regular prison visitor and I have no doubt that, as a prison visitor, he has influenced men and women who are in prison to a determination to lead new ways of life when they leave prison. I say in this debate that, if one is to influence the psychology that exists in prison today, making prisoners form a combination against administration and against society, one must have more contact with those who are outside prison and who have a sense of identity with the prisoners. The influence there will be for the prisoners' good when their term of imprisonment is ended.

My Lords, it is always difficult for anyone to follow my noble friend Lord Brockway, particularly when he is speaking, as he has tonight, in a field in which he has so much personal experience. I too support this Question. All it asks is that the Government should review the present restrictions on communications. This is not of course simply a matter of the prisoners. Anyone connected with the Howard League knows that the two things which concern prisoners most—and I expect my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will agree with this—are, first, visits and correspondence and, secondly, parole. Visits and correspondence are their only communication at all with the outside world and it is not mainly they themselves who are concerned. It may very often be the determining factor in whether or not a marriage is going to break down.

There are grave hardships in this for the relatives as well. I had a letter only last week from a woman whose adopted son is a life prisoner. She is a widow aged 84, unable to travel except by car, she lives in Dorking and he is in prison in Manchester. If I may I will send the letters, including her son's letters, to my noble friend in case he can do anything for her. I suppose it is obvious that whether or not she sees him again while she is alive is problematical. It is no good thinking of just the prisoners; there really are other people who have a right to be considered.

I promised my noble friend Lord Longford that I would say something about the law. We are in some difficulties in this field, I think; I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Harris would agree. My noble friend Lord Longford is right in saying that we have much stricter measures than in most Western European countries, particularly in relation to the censoring of correspondence. Views which have been expressed in this field, I can assure the noble Viscount, Lord Long, have not simply been expressed by do-gooders not knowing anything about the subject, or by sentimentalists.

The first conference the British Institute of Human Rights ever had was on detention. Those attending, apart from myself, were fairly respectable people. We had three committees; one chairman was Sir Kenneth Younger; the second was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman; I was the third. The chairman of the whole conference was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. The place was full of judges, prison visitors, justices of the peace, probation officers, people who knew a very great deal about the subject. They said they did not believe there was any sensible reason why any mail should be censored, except, of course, incoming mail, for contraband, which should be opened in the presence of the prisoner.

It may be that there should be exceptions. As I understand it, since then an experiment has been conducted in which in the open prisons ordinary domestic mail is not censored, except for spot checks, which are no doubt necessary to see that it is not being abused. I hope my noble friend will tell me whether I am right in saying that no difficulty whatsoever has arisen from this. If that is so—there is trouble about the IRA, I suppose, but in ordinary local prisons—could not the same thing perhaps be extended to them?

So far as the law is concerned, we are in this difficulty. I am not clear even at the moment how far we have escaped, so to speak, from the Golder case. We do like to exercise our rights, and I think, naturally, to criticise other countries in the field of human rights. But if we are going to continue to be able to do that it is desirable, is it not, as far as possible, that our own record should be clean. We are a party to the European Convention on Human Rights. In the Golder case the European Court of Human Rights decided that we had broken the terms of the Convention—Golder being a case in which a man was prevented from writing to a solicitor with a view to taking civil proceedings. That was found to be against the provisions of Article 6 which provide a right of access to the courts, and, as the Court of Human Rights said it is one of the fundamental rights of any democratic country living under the rule of law that there should be access to the courts. Here again, as I understand it, in most Continental countries a prisoner has a complete right to take any legal pro ceedings he likes. Why in this field we should be as restrictive as we are, I do not know.

The second difficulty about it is this. The Convention, like most Continental law, begins with a statement of principle and then it allows for exceptions. We were, so to say, convicted under Article 6, denying access to the courts. But if one takes Article 8, for example, which deals with correspondence, we find it says:

"Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

"There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety, or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

This seems to me sensible. You first announce a principle, the privacy of correspondence, and then you say that any party to this Convention may by its own law write in any exceptions in a wide variety of circumstances. That seems quite reasonable.

One of the difficulties I think we are liable to get into is this. The Prison Act 1952 is law. The prison rules, which are made out of it, are delegated legislation, and, therefore, they are law. But so many of the restrictions depend much more on standing orders and circular instructions, which are not law. There is no reason, of course, why standing orders or circular instructions or the governor's Handbook should be law. Every employer, of course, is entitled to give instructions to his own employees as to how they are to carry out their duties, and from that point of view it is perfectly reasonable that they should not be law. But as the European Convention is drafted in this way, and as it says, "This is the general principle, but any country can make exceptions according to their own law," we are in difficulty if so many of these restrictions come under standing orders and circular instructions.

The other thing I wanted to do was to make an appeal as to whether we could not do something to simplify the rules, because it is so difficult to understand—and all those who know about this field are impressed by it—which rule qualifies which. The first general rule is:

"The Secretary of State may, with a view to securing discipline and good order or the prevention of crime or in the interests of any persons"—

whatever that means—

"impose restrictions, either generally or in a particular case, upon the communications to be permitted between a prisoner and other persons."

That is sweeping, not subject to any exception at all, and it means that no prisoner has any right to have a visit, to see anybody or to communicate with anybody, unless the Secretary of State agrees.

Then the next one is much the same as to correspondence:

"Except as provided by statute or these rules, a prisoner shall not be permitted to communicate with any outside person, or that person with him, without the leave of the Secretary of State."

Then the next one, as to letters:

"Except as provided by these rules, every letter or communication to or from a prisoner"—

then, it used to be "shall" but it is now "may"—

"be read or examined by the governor or an officer deputed by him, and the governor may, at his discretion, stop any letter or communication on the ground that its contents are objectionable or that it is of inordinate length."

Objectionable to whom, we do not know; objectionable in what way, we do not know. These are the overriding powers. Later on, when it says:

"A convicted prisoner shall be entitled to send and to receive a letter on his reception into a prison and thereafter once a week",

that, as I understand it, all has to be read subject to these wide and sweeping rules at the beginning.

Lastly, I should like, if I may, to make a plea for a lesser degree of secrecy about all this. It is not as easy as it used to be to deal with amendments to the rules. The reason for that is that the relevant section of the Prison Act says that a draft of the rules is to be laid before Parliament, and they are to be subject in effect to what we call the Affirmative procedure. I am sorry to say that while I was in office the Home Office pulled a fast one; I never spotted this myself. This was altered in the Criminal Justice Act 1966 to provide that in future they would not have to be laid, and it would be the Negative procedure. This shows how careful parliamentarians have to be.

I had no recollection of this at all, but I have looked to see what happened. There was no such provision in the Bill introduced by Mr. Jenkins in the other place, nor any Amendment. When it came up here, at the end of a very long Committee stage—I think that it was Amendment No. 146 or something like that—my late noble friend Lord Stonham, among two or three miscellaneous Amendments included one to provide that in future the Negative procedure should be used. He did not give any explanation. He did not say why. Nobody asked him about it, and so it was passed. The first time that it appeared in the other place was as a Lords Amendment. My noble friend Lady Bacon, then Minister of State, moved, "That the Commons do agree with the Lords in their Amendment". The only explanation she gave was that it was a more convenient procedure. No one said anything except Sir John Hobson, who said words to the effect "Of course, when you say 'convenient' you mean convenient to the Minister. I hope that this will not set a precedent." Therefore, whereas formerly the matter was laid before Parliament and we had a simple procedure under which we could criticise amendments to the rules, now, of course, it is a very different matter.

The situation is still more complex as regards standing orders and circular instructions. In a Question to which I received a Written Answer on 27th June, I asked the Government about the standing orders and circular instructions. In his reply, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said that they had been placed in the Library of the House of Lords. I do not want to go into that matter and I do not know who was at fault. However, for the last few days I have been trying to get hold of standing orders and circular instructions. I have managed to get some of them from the House of Commons Library, a few from the Howard League, and a number from the Home Office which I gratefully acknowledge. One of the interesting factors is that they are all supposed to be standing orders and circular instructions relating to letters and visits, but I do not think that I have had two alike from different people. Therefore, obviously, none of them is complete.

Having now seen them all, I can only say that my sympathies are entirely with prison governors and officers. A wealth of paper descends on them. In one year there were more than 100 circular instructions, all dealing with minute details. How anyone can be expected to keep that degree of administration in their heads I cannot imagine.

If possible I should like to put forward a plea for a greater degree of simplicity. Those standing orders and circular instructions are nearly all confined to visits and directions. For example, Standing Order 5A-34(2) already gives governors a discretion to allow prisoners to use plain notepaper when writing to a child under the age of 16. The instructions concerning engaged couples and extra-marital associations have been amalgamated—I think it is a rather nice phrase—so that the previous requirements, that an engaged couple should both be serving sentences of more than five years and that the period of cohabitation under an extra-marital association should have been at least three years, have been removed. The new standing orders emphasise that the decisions must be reached jointly by the governors concerned. An unconvicted prisoner may in future apply to have a battery shaver. The amount of detail is extraordinary. If they could be simplified in any way I am sure it would be of great advantage to everyone, including of course the prison staff.

However, this is a very human subject. I hope that the experiment which was started in the open prisons—and I understand very successfully—could now be extended at least to open prisons, and that the whole question of censorship might be reconsidered.

If anything can be done to make more information available to people it should be done. My noble friend Lord Longford said that the Official Secrets Act applies. In a sense that might mean that I ought not to have them, but I have the terms of the Official Secrets Act with me. The form which everyone in a prison signs makes clear that the Official Secrets Act, so far as he is concerned, applies to all the information which he receives in his employment. If such a person receives standing orders and circular instructions he cannot send them to anybody. As regards the Home Office, I am sure they mean to be helpful but for those legitimately concerned in the subject, such as the legislators, I really think that these documents are not as available as they should be.

My Lords, I wish to confine my contribution to prisoners and their families, because for some 10 years I have visited wives when their men have gone to gaol. A settled and secure home must be everyone's dream. However, to those in prison that dream can become a nightmare. Obviously, day-to-day contact between a man and his family outside is impossible, but even the two letters per week, written and received, prove to be inadequate. We all suffer from second-class postage, so we know the problems. Wives trying to cheer up their husbands will write only of the good things that happen at home and not of the day-to-day problems. That is a fact. All of this increases the difficulties for the man inside. It makes him totally unprepared for the true situation at home—readjusting to his children, who may well resent him when he comes out because he will then take up more of their mother's time. His picture of what life is like outside is usually very different from that which he finds when he is released.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, after our debate on 29th June kindly wrote to me, but held out no hope for more money for extra visits. I understand his difficulties at present, but I hope that the situation may be improved. The situation has now become worse for many families because of the conditions in various prisons throughout the country as regards the facilities available when they visit their men. Here, unfortunately, I have to disagree with my noble friend Lord Long, because there are some prisons which are appalling. Why should these families have to queue outside in all weathers? Why should there be nowhere for these women and their families to tidy up? Why should there be nowhere for them even to change the baby's nappy? Of course, prisons are built to contain offenders, but surely in a so-called civilised society more consideration should, and in fact must, be given to this appalling state of affairs. I make no apology. I am not exaggerating. The situation in many areas is becoming worse and not better.

As I have said in previous debates, without regular family contact there is no hope of keeping men out of trouble when they leave prison. Wives and families are being punished through no fault of theirs by these very bad visiting conditions. I know that the noble Lord. Lord Harris of Greenwich, appreciates the problem. I only hope that he can give us some encouragement as regards improvement before too long. Most wives cope remarkably well with their finances, but the emotional strains on them are an extra burden which we should certainly try to alleviate.

My Lords, I shall not detain your Lordships for lone, but I should like to add my support to my noble friend Lord Longford in his efforts to improve the situation. It is fairly clear from the speeches that we have heard that there has, in fact, been a good deal of improvement over the years. However, it is quite obvious from what has been said this evening that there is ample room for a great deal more. I very much appreciated what my noble friend said about the complexity of the arrangement under which the prisoners live and which they have to do their best to understand.

What my noble friend said was underlined, with every "i" dotted and "t" crossed, by the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. I thought that that speech was an extraordinarily instructive commentary on the general points made by my noble friend Lord Longford. Surely, as he said, there is great room for simplification. Not only is there great room for simplification, but there ought to be simplification. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to tell us that matters are being put in train for simplification and the improvement of the situation.

The present rules put those who try to help prisoners into very considerable difficulties, quite apart from the difficulties under which the prisoners themselves labour. Certainly for long-term prisoners, more than one of whom I have been in touch with, it is a most frustrating experience to read the Home Office instructions. For example, a prisoner under a life sentence would gather from the material which is put before him that if he behaves himself for 10 years, at the end of that time he has a very good chance of being put on parole and regaining his freedom in society.

We should bear in mind throughout all these discussions that the prisoner is, in fact. a citizen and is still entitled to very many of the rights of the ordinary citizen. To a certain extent we have to deprive him of them, but the onus ought to be upon the authorities to show that any particular withdrawal of his rights as a citizen is required—and required in the interests of the community as a whole. I do not think that the authorities have gone very far towards discharging that burden. At the end of that 10 years when the long-term prisoner finds that the hoped-for parole, for which he has been praying for a very long time and for which he has been working very hard, turns out to require him to remain a prisoner for another two years, it is very difficult for him not to come out of it all with extreme bitterness in his heart. There is a sort of attitude which insists on this additional two years of—I shall not call it "durance vile" because no doubt the conditions under which the last two years are served are an improvement on the earlier ones—deprivation of freedom, and the man is very conscious of that. The whole position of these long-term prisoners requires to be looked at again.

A couple of years or so ago we had a very useful debate in this House on the parole system. It is high time that we looked at it again. Many of the proposals which my noble friend Lord Longford has put before us are very reasonable. This has been an interesting debate in which quite a number of your Lordships have taken part. With only one exception, everyone has agreed with the general outlook of my noble friend Lord Longford and, generally speaking, with the detailed proposals which he has made. Even the one nugatory speech, if I may so describe it, went some distance towards supporting the proposals of my noble friend Lord Longford. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Long, was certainly very much in favour of the additional freedom which has been granted in the way of correspondence and in other ways in the open prisons. We should aim at applying the conditions in open prisons as far as possible to all the prisons.

Much of the improvement in prison conditions and in the standard of rehabilitation in prisons is due to the rather mundane but very obvious system of incentives for good conduct, which I think we must agree is a very powerful encouragement to prisoners to behave well. Undoubtedly it has that effect. If with one hand we give and with the other hand we take away, we destroy much of the value of that sort of work.

I can foresee a system under which very much greater freedom of correspondence and communication with, in particular, relations will prevail. The prisoner is not only a citizen, but in most cases he is a family man. The policy of improving the situation as an incentive or reward for good conduct in the prisons is one which has not been pursued as far as it could be. Can the Minister tell us that a working party will be set up to look at these prison rules, in order to get them simplified and confined within a reasonable compass, so that an averagely literate prisoner can understand what they are about and can rely on their being performed not only to the letter but in the spirit by the authorities? If so, I think that the situation would improve a great deal.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Longford for raising this issue again and would say immediately how I entirely agree with his request to the Government that there should be a reconsideration of the whole question of censorship, with proper safeguards. Over the last 50 years, I believe that there have been great improvements. When I was first appointed a prison chaplain, 50 years ago, it was my melancholy experience to have to chaplain those who were taken to the scaffold. One of those great improvements could almost be taken as the text of what I shall endeavour to say. My noble friend Lord Brockway pointed out that contact with the outside world is an imperative value, and he would know, though he did not say so, that since I first began as a prison chaplain the Prison Visitors' Association has transformed the access of the prisoner to the outside world. I shall return to that anon.

The Question asked by my noble friend, Lord Longford, is a gate into a very large field. It is impossible to treat it satisfactorily—to till the soil of that field—unless some of its dimensions are designated. As a prison chaplain my experience is that many a prisoner has been unable to distinguish between prison as the punishment and prison as the place where that punishment was inflicted. There is a real and in many cases a divisive difference. The idea that a man in prison is subject to all kinds of regulations of which he has no cognizance and to which he has no access, may well produce that sense of hostility whereby, with the best will in the world, those who are required to look after him are placed in a permanent state of animosity or other receptive elements in that condition of animosity. Was it not the obstreperous but yet honest schoolboy, referring to the headmaster of Repton, who said that he was a beast, but a just beast?

A great deal of what can happen in a well-regulated prison depends on the accessibility of prisoners to the content and nature of their deprivations. Not only are they segregated and kept within walls, but they are also subjected to all kinds of other regulations of which, as I have said, in many cases they have no knowledge at all. A wider dispersal of a much wider element of information can, I think, reduce many of the tensions which now turn a great deal of prison life into a perpetual squabble.

But it is another issue which I think is of greater importance still. Long served sentences do irreparable damage to those who have to undergo them, because apart from the first two or three weeks in imprisonment, which are the creative and dynamic weeks, what happens to a prisoner is that he becomes habituated to an entirely artificial type of life in which many of the normal reactions to which he would be subjected, and in which he would be encouraged outside, are nonexistent. We have paid altogether too little attention to the nature of that artificial life, which disposes the prisoner to all kinds of reactions and activities which are alien to any consequential opportunities that he may have, when he conies out of prison, to lead a decent life and recover the kind of social habits which have been very largely destroyed in that artificial atmosphere.

Many of the prisoners become "stir drunk", and it is because they are totally segregated against the contacts of the world which would keep them more or less sane. It is true that some great spirits have overcome these difficulties. I was reading the other day of John Bunyan's 12 years in Bedford Gaol. He came out from those 12 years with the same bright and splendid spirit in which he entered them. But things were very different. He was invited to preach in London during that incarceration, and he took the weekend off and went to London and preached, and came back on the Tuesday. His wife cooked meals for him. In fact, their marital relations were not totally obliterated, and at least one of his children was the result of conception within that set of circumstances. This speaks a great deal about the corruption of the warders, but it also speaks of the way in which there is an almost necessary—I would say quite necessary—relationship between the prisoner, even when he is in prison, and the world to which it is hoped one day he will return with a greater chance of repairing the damage and leading a better life.

It is in that light that I believe the restriction on letters and particularly the restriction on visits, the paucity of opportunity to maintain a real contact with the world outside, is one of the most debilitating and dangerous elements in the prison system itself. It is for that reason that, although this is not the debate this evening, I am totally opposed to the prison system. I recognise that segregation and incarceration are inevitably necessary in some cases.

I will not delay the House with a long speech. But wearing the kind of collar I do your Lordships will not rebuke me if I refer to a very important effect of the kinds of restrictions by which prisoners are segregated from the real world, and become artificially conditioned to a way of life which is, in so many ways, degrading, and in all ways unsatisfactory. The answer is this: Among the other intentions of imprisonment is reformation. I would put it first, but whether you put it first or lower down the list it is nevertheless true that it is the ambition, or should be the ambition, of those who punish that those who are punished should react in such a way that they come to penitence and begin to lead a different and better sort of life.

It is almost impossible to sustain the element of contrition and penitence within the artificiality of prison life. It is the rarest exception that a man in those conditions becomes imbued with a new sense of his moral obligations, detests what has been his past, and intends to do whatever he can, by the grace of God, or whatever other means are available, to lead a new life. It is this total absence of the conditions which promote any sort of reformation which is the most detestable and dangerous element in prolonged prison life in any case.

When a man (or a woman for that matter) is in fairly constant contact with the people, in many cases, whom he or she has wronged most of all—and how heartily I agree with the noble Baroness; the wives, children and lovers, and so forth—and they are constantly presented to him, even in conditions which are artificial, short and squalid, they can yet maintain that moral link which I believe is of imperative necessity if afterwards such a man or woman is to acquire a new kind of dignity and restore something to the society that he, or she, has so largely impaired.

This is one of the outstanding needs of the present situation, and it is one of the ultimate principles lying behind what my noble friend Lord Longford has been trying to say. By all means let us be careful. Let us secure where we can. Let us make certain that advantages are not taken of too great freedoms that may be offered. Let us by all means regard imprisonment as a condition necessary in some cases for the kind of reparations that are required. But having said that, let us, in God's name, keep those prison sentences short. Let us vary them in ways which will keep real contact with the world outside. And let us remember, if you will allow me finally to say this, that there, but for the grace of God, go most of us.

My Lords, I am so overcome by the ability and clarity shown in the debate that has taken place that I am, for once, a little reluctant to take it further. There was the voice, for example, of the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, from whom I think I learnt so much of my early knowledge of penal reform: the clarity of the speeches of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner; the moving words of the noble Baroness.

There is something quite terrible about the Tory Front Bench—not in its present occupant but in its effect upon people who come on to the Tory Front Bench—in that it transforms so charming and gifted a speaker as I know the noble Viscount, Lord Long, to be, into a victim of all the inhibitions that have been accumulating in that place for so many years. He spoke fairly about the prison warders. The last time I was with the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on an investigation of penal reform, we saw the prison warders and we were astonished at what they said. They said, "We don't want to be turnkeys. We want to be warders." They said, "We don't want to have no discretion at all. We want to help. We went into this job thinking it was worthwhile and might be rewarding."

I know since then that some prisons have given a little more discretion in many ways. There are prisons which have special privileges. I have visited prisons everywhere I have been, and seen the loneliness of a prison. I do not think, whether it be a single room with a bucket in Thailand, or whether it be a solid cell in Dartmoor, that

"hearts innocent and quiet take them for an hermitage".

I understand that there are always lonely people who like to be lonely. But I recall the day when, as a Labour delegation, we were looking for the Labour Party in the middle of Greece. They had all disappeared. I said, "Let us have a look in the prison". We were admitted to the prison because we were an official delegation of the British Government. We found all the Labour Party there—every one of them. They were quite a cheerful lot because they could associate, although they were suffering a little from malnutrition and consumption. The right of association is something which is helpful.

The point I particularly wish to make is that at the beginning of a long sentence, when a man is called upon to face a long and desperate future, his one hope is communication with a loved one; his one hope is that someone remains to trust or to help. That is why, time after time, clients go on pleading not guilty when they do not have any chance with a jury. They do it because, having pleaded not guilty, they can say to their wives, "I told you I didn't do it". It may not be noble but it is very human. It is at that time that a man wants a little consideration, a little consideration to start with and not to have to work for privileges for perhaps 15 years and the right to communicate with his missus or, if you like, his mistress. In this connection I think the noble Viscount, Lord Long, unintentionally did a little injustice to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who in his opening sentence said that he had consulted friends who had suggested that there might be exceptional cases. I should have thought the IRA was a fairly obvious one at any rate for consideration, or instances where half the gang have not been arrested and situations like that. Nobody is asking for a blanket rule which applies to the most difficult cases.

I recall going to see a show prison, as it was called, in Italy where they had a whole series of instruments which looked remarkably like those machines where one puts a penny in a slot and presses a button. Those machines were for the examination of prisoners immediately they had been sentenced. They tested their thyroid gland content with one machine, they took a brain reading with another and an absolutely full heart reading with a third, so that by the time all the readings had been taken they had a complete record of the man, except for one matter about which I asked them. I asked, "When a chap has just received a sentence of 20 years, including five years of seclusion, do you think he is in a normal condition to be examined in this way?" They replied very frankly, "Of course we appreciate that point, but think of the cost of bringing him back from Brindisi". Yes, I suppose we must think of the cost when we have devised a monetary system under which the more money we have the harder up we are and which involves an immediate revision of interest rates because we have too much money in the bank.

Penal reform must be the most meanly treated subject in political terms. For 20 years I have been trying to get Oldham Hospital made fit and I have made speeches about Strangeways Prison. I am told by the authorities, "Yes, but let us have the hospital done first. It is a question of priorities". It is of course a question of priorities.

Great experiments were conducted on the Continent, and of course great problems remain in an inter-racial society. I thought I was as free as a man could be of a colour bar until I found a solitary white man in a prison in Nigeria with a whole series of mixed races and dialects of that great area of Nigeria. I talked to that man. "What can we do?" I asked him, and he replied, "Do nothing. You mustn't. I can maintain myself here as an individual only by resignation. There is nothing else left. I was guilty and I have no right to complain". Nevertheless, it was tough for such a man—think of the diet alone—a man who has been used to European food.

In a previous speech on this subject I mentioned the suggestion box in a prison in Peking. I know that we have reached the stage when I shall be told that all this is an illusion. They were quite frank about their prison in Peking; people moved about all night, they admitted. They said, "These prisoners would go mad if we kept them locked up in this sort of climate". Nevertheless, for 24 hours a day at the four corners of the prison there were guards armed with guns and who were instructed to shoot. That was the price they had to pay, a price which I think the British public would never accept, for an otherwise sensible routine.

I have no doubt that I am speaking at an inconvenient time of the evening. If that were not the case I am sure at least 100 noble Lords on the Benches opposite would get up and say, "All that sort of thing in prison is laid on for you like an opera, and none of those things really happen". I assure the House one cannot wander round a great city like Peking and think it is all an illusion; see the young girls on bicycles going to work and think of what it was like a few years ago. It is no more an illusion than when I was in Red Square in Moscow in 1938 and was deceived by the cardboard tanks which later conducted the defence of Stalingrad. But I am getting rather wide of the subject.

There is so much that could be done. I am in danger now of making the mistake I made when Mr. Butler, as he then was, now the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, was Home Secretary, and who replied to letters I had sent him in which I suggested that correspondence chess was about the one occupation which could occupy a man while in prison, which could give him the opportunity of playing in the light or in the dark, and the pieces for which could be made fairly easily with a pen-knife in the workshop. I was told they would not be interested; but I should love to try the experiment, even now. Chess is the simplest game in the world to learn to play badly, and to play badly is the best way to enjoy it; people who play it supremely well are nearly all going mad under the strain, and that would not be the wish I should like or desire to achieve.

Many other Governments, right back to a year or two after the war, were trying experiments. There was a collective experiment into repetitive crime in the Netherlands where they tried to do something about people who stole bicycles, went on stealing bicycles and the moment they were released stole more bicycles, and they made a considerable impact on that curious aspect of the problem of repetitive crime. One French Prime Minister—I cannot remember which but it was probably Mendes-France—took the old prison near Fontainebleau that was built at the time of Dartmoor and for the same purpose, for prisoners of war, and gave the governor a free hand, saying, "We will send to you the worst men we have and do what you can with them," and he did. After long talks he showed me one of his star pupils, a charming, gifted man of 25 or 26. I said, "How long has he been here?" He replied, "He has been here eight years". I said, "Governor, you told me that according to the rules he could not be here for eight years, that he could not have had a sentence at that age which would keep him here". The governor replied, "He was not sentenced to imprisonment. He murdered his father and mother and was sentenced to the guillotine".

I am really rather a hardhearted, blunt and straightfoward individual, thinking sometimes very much like the noble Viscount, Lord Long, that tough people and those who shoot at one and so on, deserve severe sentences, and I apologise if I have overstrayed the mark. We now have 42,000 prisoners, and let us be frank and say that this started shortly after the war with the judges deciding to give heavier sentences for grave crime. It started when Lord Justice Goddard announced that he was going to be punitive, and within three years sentences for grave crime, very grave crime and violent crime went up by half or by twice as much. We got three men in a cell, and when you get three men in a cell you are fortunate if you get three good ones. If you get one bad one that is where crime can be plotted. That is why we who believe in penal reform say that we are not accepting the burden of the increase in crime which is now visible all over Britain.

My Lords, perhaps it is natural that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, and I, who are wives ourselves and know the problems of children, should speak for the families. I should like to bring just one topic to your Lordships tonight. This is to do with voluntary work done by women who help prisoners' wives, girl friends and children. If you are a woman with a husband in prison and have a baby or young child which you have to bring with you to the prison, life can be very difficult. The journey can take a long time, perhaps from changing from train to bus and then having to walk. The weather can be cold and foggy; the children get tired and the baby's nappies get wet. Groups of women, such as those belonging to the Mothers Union, who are responsible and have had their own children and have plenty of time, under-stand these women's problems. What can be more helpful for these unfortunate prisoners' wives or girl friends than to have a nappy-changing crêche or a place to leave the children where they will be looked after while they make their visit? Many of the girls are not married; they have numerous social problems. The women who run the crêches at the prison can watch some of the girls' progress in their pregnancy and help them as the pressures become greater.

There are not enough such crêches in our prisons and institutions, yet I have heard that one such crêche at an institution at Boston Spa in Yorkshire has had to close because of the security risk. Knowing some of the splendid, kind ladies, such as the wife of the Reverend Dean of Ripon who is a trained nurse, I am rather surprised. There are many responsible women who have time and who can help in all sorts of ways with prisoners' families and social problems. Is it true that the Government are not encouraging this sort of voluntary work? I should be very pleased to hear the Minister say tonight that he is grateful for the voluntary work and that he will encourage it. These women do not worry about the hours of work that they do and about doing overtime at weekends. They do it because they want to help some very unfortunate women, some near desperation, and some little children who cannot help that their fathers are in prison. With the country in its present financial difficulties, can we do without this free voluntary help?

My Lords, I do not want to stand between the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the House at this time. I had no intention of speaking in this debate but I feel I must say one word to the noble Viscount, Lord Long, whose last sentence I think was, "After all, what are they there for?" The answer is that they are there to be cured. This Session was opened with divine worship; this is a Christian country, and it seems to me that we are held in this matter that we have to do good to those who despitefully use us.

My interest in speaking is that I happen to have been for 25 years the chairman of the largest borstal in Scotland, and inevitably in that time one is in touch with parents and with boys in a cumulative number. I should like to say this one word to the authorities: never once in those 25 years was there complaint, either by parents or by boys, of being in any way stopped by any kind of regulation or by any of the issues which have been very rightly brought up tonight, but certainly were not being used in that regard.

I have another interest in the fact that for more than 25 years in the community in the Island of Iona, to which I belong, we had without cessation a borstal camp, the first such camp ever run, bringing borstal boys out to live in camps. Our only rule was that they should be back in I the camp at 10 o'clock at night, and never once—and when you think of 24 boys at a time over 30 years this adds up to a large number of people—was there a boy who did not appear at the right time. Never once was there a pilfering or even an accusation in the Island of. Iona that anything had been taken by anybody. There was this tremendous sense of response.

This has been greatly enriched by the present governor, who now arranges that this camp should go on, not just as a camp for borstal lads being run by a group of people but with the borstal lads and an equal number of children who are mentally defective. Each borstal lad was given the care of a child who was mentally defective. Never once in the last five years have they made a mistake in this experiment. Always they have been the essence of courtesy and concern, helping the handicapped children to bathe and so on. The possibilities are quite tremendous. All that is being asked for in this debate is that there should be proper communication, and I am certain that that will be seen to by the authorities.

My Lords, let me say at the outset that I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Longford for having initiated this debate and giving us the opportunity of discussing the broad range of issues that we have discussed this evening. Let me say at once that I have no wish at all to see unreasonable restrictions of prisoners' communication with the outside world. I want to see the Home Office continue to work towards the abolition or the easement of restrictions which are unnecessary, but I must begin by pointing out the obvious: that a degree of restriction on prisoners' activities is not of itself unreasonable. Some of it—I must be quite blunt—is inevitable.

I should like to say something right at the outset about the situation affecting prisoners' relatives and friends because, very naturally, this has been one of the issues constantly referred to by speakers during this debate. There are clearly strong humanitarian grounds for enabling a prisoner to maintain close links with his family and his friends. The separation which takes place between a prisoner and his family affects them just as much as it does him, and their loyal support when he is in trouble may help him to keep out of further trouble when he is eventually released from prison. The prison rules in fact recognise these factors, and allow a prisoner to communicate with relatives and friends without the special permission that is undoubtedly required in other cases.

I accept at once that there is not the same freedom to communicate with members of the general public; people who were not known to the prisoner before he went into prison. Strangers who want to write to or visit a prisoner may well be extremely well-intentioned; and some of them, indeed, do visit prisoners. I shall come to that particular point later, if I may. Others may be merely curious; and some others may not always have, necessarily, particularly agreeable motives. Let me take one obvious example. I do not think there would be many—albeit there may be some, but not many—who would take the view that there should be unrestricted access to a person serving a sentence of imprisonment by his criminal associates, or his former criminal associates. I think that raises quite a number of real issues, and it is impossible to dismiss them with a wave of the hand or to say that one should be able to impose some clear-cut set of rules on a prison governor. One would find it, I may say, extremely difficult to do so.

However, having said that, I should come to this particular point. My noble friend Lord Brockway referred to cases where, as he described the situation, people who would have helped a prisoner to rehabilitate himself had been denied access to a prison. If cases of this sort occur I think it is undoubtedly regrettable, and, certainly, if they are raised with me I shall look into them. But let me say this quite clearly. The rules are not absolute. There is a discretion on a prison governor, which is quite often exercised by that governor, to permit contact between a prisoner and people whom that prisoner has not known before he went into prison. That discretion is utilised quite often, and in my view absolutely rightly so.

My noble friend Lord Longford raised a number of questions, and perhaps I may deal with some of those which appeared to me to be right at the heart of his argument. I will deal with three particular issues. The first is what I might describe as the question of European practice, which was also referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. The second is the New Bridge Lecture by the last Home Secretary, and the question of prison standing orders. Lastly, there is the question of complaints by prisoners to Members of Parliament. I think these are three important issues, and with my noble friend's agreement I will deal with them in a little detail. My noble friend began by referring to the fact that some cases are to come before the European Commission on Human Rights. He is absolutely right; there are indeed going to be some cases in the New Year. He went on to say—and my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner also implied—that we are in something of a European doghouse, in that we have practices here which are not permitted by anybody else. I am not quite sure of the evidence for that view, but—

My Lords—

I will in fact deal with this, my Lords.

But I did not say that.

My Lords, I would say to my noble friend that, if he looks at Hansard tomorrow, he will find that he did say something remarkably similar to it. Let me just deal with this particular matter.

My Lords, will my noble friend give way?

I will in a moment, with pleasure.

But my noble friend is mistaken; I really must ask him to give way. I did not say that we were doing something which was not done by anybody else. I said that we were falling below—and I thought well below—the normal European standards, which is a different thing.

I see. My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend now says, and I hope that, when I look at Hansard tomorrow, I shall see, as I am sure I will, that my noble friend has stated the position quite accurately. But I must say to him quite clearly that the impression his words left on me was that our practice in fact falls behind that of other European countries. I am saying to him quite frankly that that is not so. Indeed, it is not only my noble friend who has said this; it has quite often been stated in the Press and elsewhere that this is so. What I would say to my noble friend and to those others is this—and if my noble friend does not in fact acknowledge that this particular point was made by him, he must allow me to deal with those who have used this argument outside this House.

I want to give only one particular indication that there is very little merit in this argument, and that is by looking at the German Penal Code. Germany, after all, is one of our major partners in Europe and it does not seem to me at all inappropriate that one should look at the German experience and see what the rules are so far as German prisons are concerned. The German Penal Code for 1976 deals with the matter in this way as far as letters are concerned. I am dealing with correspondence at the moment. The list of reasons for which a letter can be stopped is in fact a pretty formidable one. It includes these various headings:

"If the objective of treatment would be jeopardised; if the forwarding would constitute an offence; if grossly distorted descriptions of prison conditions or serious insults"—

presumably to prison staff or others—

"are included; if social integration of another prisoner might be damaged; if illegible, incomprehensible, in code or unnecessarily in a foreign language."

That is the German Penal Code of 1976. I would not for a moment say that every statement in that code would properly be introduced in this country. I would not say that for a moment. What I would say is that this constant suggestion which is made, let us say, to use the most neutral language at the moment, outside this House, that in some special way the situation in this country is a great deal less satisfactory than it is in Europe, is not, in my view, justified by all the circumstances. I shall come on to a number of other foreign experiences, if I may, in a moment, but I htink that that is not an unimportant consideration for the House to take into account.

I have referred to Germany at the moment, but indeed many other European countries admit frankly that they impose censorship on the grounds of security, and sometimes for other reasons as well. Similarly, many admit restrictions on those who may do it, and who may correspond. I have cited the German example. There are others, but I think I have made the point right at the outset of this speech that, although the situation that I have described, and will describe this evening, is not in my view wholly satisfactory—I would not for a moment suggest that it was—the suggestion that the situation in this country is a great deal less satisfactory than it is in the rest of Western Europe does not, in my view, stand up.

I turn now to the second point; that is, the New Bridge Lecture delivered by the former Home Secretary, in which he indeed announced that there would be a review of prison standing orders. This has been put in hand. In fact, the section dealing with privileges—that is, Section 4 of standing orders—has been completed, and is going to be discussed with the staff associations within the next few weeks. There is a second review which is now starting—that is, on Section 7 of the prison standing orders—which deals with religious education, physical education, libraries and welfare. A working party will deal with this. It has been set up already and, again, once conclusions have been reached the matter will be discussed with the staff associations.

While on this point, I should like to deal with a point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner, who raised, in my view, an absolutely legitimate criticism of the amount of paper sent to prison governors. I agree that there is almost certainly a formidable amount of this material and often it is difficult for the governor to make a decision given the amount of paper which is sent to him by the Home Office.

Having said that, I must draw my noble and learned friend's attention to the reasons why this paper is sent in the first place. To take one or two examples, a letter may come from a Member of Parliament or a Member of this House which directs attention to the fact that a particular prisoner has been treated in a particular way at one prison, has been moved and is treated in a wholly different way in another prison. The prisoner says, "I am in the same prison system. Why should I not have the same rules applying to me affecting this particular privilege?" Often the decision of the Minister—be it one of my predecessors or be it one of my successors—will be that he thinks it desirable to regularise this practice so that a particular privilege should be a privilege as of right and not provided in just the case of one or two named prisoners. Therefore, out go the instructions to the prison governors. This is a problem which I am sure my noble and learned friend will recognise. I agree it raises formidable problems so far as prison governors are concerned. I am aware of it and I take note of the point. It is a weighty matter which it is right to bear in mind.

On the question of access as far as Members of Parliament are concerned, my noble friend Lord Longford referred to a letter which was sent to him about a prisoner who, I understand, is now out of prison. He raised the question and was kind enough to say that I had apologised to him—

Not on that point, but on another, my Lords.

In the course of that letter he implied that I had offered some apology on behalf of the prison authorities. I am glad that I did so, but I cannot remember the circumstances. I should be happy to apologise on behalf of the prison authorities where I think a mistake has been made, but I do not intend to apologise if I do not believe that a mistake has been made. I do not think it would be reasonable if I were to do so.

The situation as far as access to Members of Parliament is concerned was in fact dealt with by the last Home Secretary in a Written Answer which he gave on 1st December, 1975, in another place. I could quote this extensively if my noble friend would like me to do so, but basically it says this—and I emphasise that I am quoting only part of the Answer. He is setting out the new procedures as far as Members of Parliament are concerned, and that applies to Members of both Houses. It says:

"First, a letter to a Member will no longer be stopped or sent back to the writer for amendment unless it contains a complaint about the administration of an establishment or the actions of staff that has not been raised and considered through the normal internal procedure. Secondly, a visit to a prisoner by a Member, acting in his capacity as a Member, will no longer be within hearing of prison staff, unless the Member so requests, or there are specific reasons of security, as in the case of prisoners in security category 'A' who form less than 1 per cent. of the prison population.

"It is clearly desirable that Members should, on these occasions, give prisoners no encouragement to circumvent the well-established procedures for enabling complaints against prison administration and staff to be considered by the governor, the board of visitors, and the Secretary of State". —[Official Report, Commons, col. 378; 1/12/75].

I could go on, but the text is available in Hansard.

When writing to Members of either House, I normally draw attention to this arrangement, which was a liberalising arrangement. It carried the frontiers forward significantly as far as access to Members of Parliament of both Houses is concerned. There is no mystery about it. That statement was made by a former Home Secretary in another place about the situation which would arise. I cannot comment on this particular case without reference to the correspondence, but on the basis of my noble friend's suggestion it presumably was the case that this particular provision was not accepted by the former inmate to whom he has referred. That is the situation on three specific points raised in the speech of my noble friend.

My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to intervene? He said—and I am grateful that he has taken so much trouble; I agree it is better to have referred back to that statement by a former Home Secretary—the complaint cannot go forward to the Member of Parliament until it has been raised and considered. The question is, what does consideration involve? It may involve a delay of many months before a complaint is thoroughly investigated. I have cases, not the one referred to the noble Lord, but others where it takes months before an investigation is completed. I do not know whether that "considered" means it must be disposed of.

My Lords, it depends on the circumstances of the case. Many cases take many months to dispose of. It may be an allegation of assault by prison officers or something like that. I have seen the results of detailed investigations which apply in matters of this sort. It is a grave matter. It is absolutely right that there should be exhaustive investigations. Inevitably, in some cases there is a delay of many months. I would not suggest this is not the case. I would put it to my noble friend and to others that in matters of this sort it seems to me to be right that the matter should be vigorously investigated first of all. If there is then what is regarded as an unsatisfactory outcome, the MP's help can be enlisted. I think that that is done widely by prisoners in situations of this sort.

In considering the frequency with which prisoners may conduct their correspondence or receive visits, I should like to emphasise that the entitlements stipulated in the Prison Rules are regarded as minimum entitlements and that, wherever possible, actual allowances are greater. The Rules stipulate that a convicted prisoner may write and receive one letter weekly and may receive a visit every four weeks. For all practical purposes, there are no restrictions in the case of unconvicted prisoners. In local prisons and in remand centres, where staff are heavily committed to escort work for the courts and where the population includes un-convicted prisoners entitled to daily visits by lawyers and friends and relatives, very often governors have limited resources of staff and accommodation to handle extra visits and letters for convicted inmates.

Nevertheless, even here, the minimum allowance is two letters weekly, inward and outward, and in training prisons usually three weekly and in some cases, more. In most training prisons, visits are allowed at two or three-weekly intervals. Nevertheless, I want to improve, and improve substantially, the regularity of visits where this is practicable, for the most obvious reasons. I must say there are real problems and I have referred to some of them. There are very substantial limitations on accommodation and pressure on staff resources. These are bureaucratic terms, but they are a real issue to a governor who has only a limited number of staff available and a pitifully inadequate amount of accommodation, in many cases, in order to house not only the wives and girl friends of inmates but also their children. The noble Baronesses, Lady Sharples, and Lady Masham, both referred to this point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, asked me to say that the Government were not opposed to voluntary effort. They certainly are not. Indeed, only two weeks ago, I was in a prison in Preston, Lancashire, and I took the opportunity then of saying how grateful I and, indeed, everybody was to the two ladies looking after small children in a creche in the visiting area of the prison. These people do most valuable work on behalf of the community. They allow an inmate to have a talk to his wife in a condition of privacy and still to have access to the children when he wishes to do so. Having seen examples of this, I want to move ahead as rapidly as possible in this area, though once again I have unhappily to state that the resources available are extremely limited. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, referred to the closure of a creche for security reasons. I do not know anything about that, but I shall make inquiries and write to her.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, referred to bad conditions. I have confirmed that. Nevertheless, it is only right to say that there has been some improvement in recent years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples, may be aware, a survey is already under way in cooperation with Mrs. Joyce Williams, JP, who conducted an earlier survey in 1971, to discover and determine the remaining deficiencies in the facilities in the area that I have been talking about. Certainly, I am highly seized of the importance of doing something here and I shall do everything I can to improve the situation.

On the general question of the regularity of visits, I have recently discussed this matter with the Department, and I have asked the Chief Inspector of the Prison Service and the regional directors of the Prison Department to give particular attention to visiting arrangements during their regular visits to prisons. I have asked the Inspectorate in particular to pick out this particular situation when it prepares its regular reports on prisons which go to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

I shall now return to the subject of censorship of correspondence. The main guiding principle of our policy is to gear censorship to the needs of the safe custody of prisoners and of good order in Prison Department establishments. Certainly, I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Longford on one point; that is, that I think it would be misleading the House if I suggested that censorship of itself could always prevent people succeeding in planning an escape; could always prevent the intimidation of witnesses; or could always prevent the smuggling of drugs into a prison. Of course, there is no question of being, able to guarantee a 100 per cent. record of success, or anything approaching that, by having censorship, but I would say that, time-consuming and unprofitable though it is, it has on a number of occasions undoubtedly helped to frustrate attempts in this particular direction. Given the character of some of the inmate population of our prisons and given the fact that, quite apart from the criminally sophisticated, we have nearly 100 convicted terrorist prisoners, it would be a remarkable decision for Government totally to disregard considerations of this sort.

In my judgment, there are thus valid reasons for maintaining censorship in those prisons holding our most dangerous prisoners; namely, those in security categories A and B. In open prisons—and indeed my noble friends Lord Longford and Lord Gardiner referred to the situation regarding open prisons—holding the least dangerous prisoners, censorship of correspondence with relatives and friends has been virtually abolished. That again has been done in the lifetime of the present Government. One is not facing absolutely total immobility so far as the Home Office is concerned. This important development, the abolition of censorship in open prisons, has only taken place in the lifetime of this Administration. I have referred to category D prisoners, and also to category A and B prisoners. With regard to prisoners in category C, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has stated his intention of extending the practice at present which we have in our open prisons as soon as it is practicable to do so. There is no disposition on our part to be wholly resistant to this.

Another problem which I should like to mention (and this is something which I do not think has been touched upon by many speakers in this debate today) is the prisoner who receives no visits from friends or relatives, and who, if he is serving a lengthy sentence, is at some risk of losing touch with what goes on outside the walls of the prison, never having any contact with anybody other than a member of the Prison Service or his fellow inmates. A prisoner of this character can be a desperately lonely person, and the good which a visit can bring from someone from the outside world, quite unconnected with the prison staff, is enormous. I have no doubt that prisoners value highly the opportunity to talk to someone about ordinary matters of everyday interest; someone who will take an interest in him and his family; someone who might perhaps be able to help him to understand how he has gone wrong, and with whom he can discuss his future plans when he finally emerges from a prison régime.

Above all, prisoners need someone to listen to them, a person with more time than many prison staff can find available to offer in today's extremely difficult circumstances; someone not obviously part of the system itself. Many such prisoners are helped by voluntary prison visitors—if I may say so to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I should like to pay tribute to the selfless work which they carry out on behalf of many of these lonely, friendless men. We have at the moment somewhere around 550 voluntary prison visitors. Their numbers are by no means evenly spread. There is undoubtedly a problem in this area. Several prisons are well served; some, frankly, not at all. We are making at the moment strenuous efforts to try to fill some of these gaps.

Let me conclude by saying that it is right constantly to examine our attitude to the present restrictions, which undoubtedly exist so far as communications are concerned. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I try to ensure that in applying the rules we preserve a reasonable balance between the complete freedom of visits and correspondence which some undoubtedly desire, and the restrictions which absolute security would undoubtedly impose. The operation of the rules is kept constantly under review and is being reviewed now.

The maximum discretion is encouraged in extending facilities for communication in terms of both letters and visits, where feasible. We are always willing to try out new ideas in order to ensure that prisoners are treated sensitively and with humanity. Certainly I think we have made some progress—perhaps some considerable progress—towards this objective. But I concede at once that a great deal more is both necessary and desirable, and my right honourable friend and I are determined to try to do our best to achieve it.