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

My Lords, to ensure that people are aware of the benefits to which they may be entitled by law the Government publish a wide range of leaflets explaining in ordinary language the conditions of entitlement to each benefit. In particular, this year we have produced a new and improved edition of our booklet Help for Handicapped People, which is a guide to all the cash benefits and services for disabled people and their families. To date 800,000 copies have been printed and they are availabe to anyone, free of charge, from DHSS offices. We are using television fillers, posters in post offices and some advertising in publications aimed at disabled people to publicise the booklet. In the longer term it is the Government's aim to introduce a more coherent system of benefits for the disabled than the present one, but progress towards this aim depends on the achievement of a strong economy.

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that extremely helpful reply and welcome the information which she has given. Is she aware that the present statutes and regulations occupy over 1,000 pages and even experienced people find it very difficult to advise those who are handicapped on exactly what benefits and allowances they are entitled to claim? When the Government are thinking further about this matter, will they kindly bear in mind the desirability of stating the purpose and scope of each provision of the law instead of trying to cover everything with a mass of hypothetical cases which often cause confusion?

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. We are, of course, aware that often we are talking of extremely complicated legal provisions and we try, so far as possible, to translate them into somewhat simpler language in order that those who have to make use of them can understand them.

My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the particular case of people who have difficulty in claiming benefit for industrial diseases which have disabled them? Is the Minister aware that in a number of cases about which I have written to the Secretary of State recently the process of making a claim has been so lengthy that the patient has died before it has been decided? Is the noble Baroness aware that, notwithstanding the availability of these leaflets, if they are not drawn to the attention of the patients in the first place they cannot initiate a claim? While the Secretary of State has said, quite properly, that a doctor in a NHS hospital cannot be given the duty of informing patients of their possible entitlements, where such a patient is diagnosed as suffering from a disease such as mesothelioma or asbestosis the hospital social worker should at least draw the attention of the patient to the relevant leaflet.

My Lords, we look at all possible ways of getting these leaflets distributed and all places from which people can make inquiries. They can do this at DHSS offices, in local authority social services departments, in citizens' advice bureaux and doctors' surgeries. Leaflets and booklets about the way to make claims are frequently available in post offices. One is aware that there are still some people who are unaware of their entitlement, but we have constantly under review the different methods of publicising the benefits to which people are entitled.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness the Minister this question: Bearing in mind that the Government are to be congratulated on making available something like 800,000 copies of the regulations, does she agree that it is important that they should find themselves in the right hands? Probation officers and social workers spend a disproportionate amount of their time trying to advise people of what they are entitled to. Although I know that the Ministry have taken steps to see that this handbook is available in citizens' advice bureaux, may I ask the Minister whether she will make certain that other branches of the social welfare field, such as probation officers, should have a copy of it at the earliest possible moment?

My Lords, I will certainly draw that suggestion about probation officers to the attention of my right honourable friend.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware, in spite of the impressive answers she has given, that it is difficult for people to find out what benefits they may receive? For instance, is it not fair that a father with a severely disabled son should know exactly what his son is entitled to? I understand that in any case he is entitled to an attendance allowance, mobility allowance and invalidity allowance, but not to a supplementary benefit allowance. Can we be told at what figure deductions from any cash reserves start? I understand that the basic figure is £2,000. At what rate do the deductions progress after that?

My Lords, as the noble Earl has raised a particular case I hope he will accept that it would be better if I wrote to him about the circumstances. On the point of people being entitled to supplementary benefits, I can say that one of the difficulties at present is that a person who receives invalidity benefit may well have an income which is above the supplementary benefit level and therefore would not be entitled to this. There is this poverty trap which comes into these particular cases. It may well be that these are the circumstances in which this particular person finds himself, but I will, if I may, write to the noble Earl about it.

My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it would be enormously helpful if there were an inquiry department in each supplementary benefit office, so that everybody would know exactly to whom they could apply at a supplementary benefit office for the detailed information they are seeking?

My Lords, I certainly note the point made by the noble Baroness. I think that people going to supplementary benefit offices can always get the information they want, but if this is not clearly indicated—

No!

If this is not clearly indicated, it would be a matter for local decisions.

My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that we are discussing a very complicated and involved matter? Would it not be advisable—I offer this suggestion—to set up a Select Committee to investigate the whole matter with a view to simplification and consolidation of the law involved?

My Lords, that is really very wide of the original Question, but I should like to say to the noble Lord that over the whole area of social welfare the system of child benefits has reached a state which is intelligible and on which I think there is a great deal of agreement; the second-tier pensions system is very clear, and of course as that comes into full effect so we hope that less supplementary benefit will be necessary. We therefore believe that there will gradually be a simplification of the system in this particular way.

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

My Lords, I am pleased to say that excellent progress is being made. The main building works for the Odstock Unit are expected to start in August and will take two years to complete. Preparatory work is already under way. Building at Stanmore should start in November and be completed by May 1983. A temporary unit will be opening later this year to provide a service until the work is completed.

Detailed layout plans for the rebuilding of the spinal injuries unit at Stoke Mandeville Hospital have been agreed by the project team, and essential preparatory building works will shortly be completed. The main works can then begin and will take about two years to complete.

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that interesting reply. May I ask whether she is aware that there is a very great and serious problem regarding the after-care of the ex-patients of Stoke Mandeville Hospital, of which there are about 5,000 on their books? There is no computer service and the administration is overloaded and therefore very inefficient. Also, there is no call-back system, and many patients get into serious problems related particularly to their bowels, bladders and pressure sores. Could the Government look into this very seriously? Is the noble Baroness further aware that in the last week I have heard of two cases through general practitioners contacting me and asking where they can send patients who are suffering from non-acute paraplegia for bladder and bowel treatment and advice?

My Lords, I deeply regret that there should have been any difficulties, but my information is that no formal complaints about difficulties of the recall system have been received either from individual patients at Stoke Mandeville Hospital or from the Spinal Injuries Association. May I suggest to the noble Baroness that if difficulties have arisen this is very much a matter to be resolved locally, and I know that the health authority would be very willing to discuss these matters and look into individual cases where there are problems.

My Lords, as chairman of the Spinal Injuries Association, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that unfortunately she has not got the correct information and that the Spinal Injuries Association will be pleased to supply her with this?

My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will write to me with her complaint in this way.

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

My Lords, the Government expect to publish the Green Paper on copyright and related topics in the middle of this month. It will be entitled Reform of the Law relating to Copyright, Designs and Performers' Protection—A Consultative Document.

My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that most welcome reply, I should like to ask him whether I may press him for a specific date when the Green Paper will be printed? Is he aware that the delay has been causing great concern among the creators of works, and that since the Whitford Committee Report of 1977 they have been aware that the Act of 1956 is unable to cope with the increasing technology?

My Lords, the noble Earl may, indeed, press me to try to give a more precise date, but I am afraid that I could not go further than my original Answer. The Government are, indeed, aware of the need to update the 1956 Copyright Act and, if the noble Earl can be patient till the middle of this month, he will certainly see the more precise ideas that are in the Government's mind at the moment.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the statement that this Green Paper is coming will be very widely welcomed? Would he be so good as to say whether it is expected that the Green Paper will cover the recommendations of the Whitford Report and, in particular, their recommendations in relation to performers' rights and to possible amendments to the Performing Rights Act?

My Lords, the Green Paper will have many recommendations, but I am afraid that I must ask the noble Lord to be as patient as the rest of us.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is satisfied that, if the recommendations of the Whitford Committee are accepted, they will compare favourably with the practices adopted in other European countries?

My Lords, I do not think that I could go quite as far as that. I am afraid that, once again, must ask the noble Lord to be a little patient till the middle of this month. Perhaps we can then go into it in further detail.

My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I say that, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Council Luxembourg meeting.

rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 27th November 1980 be approved.

My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, on the completion of their marathon work. It is the longest Select Committee inquiry this century and the amount of information they had to assimilate and the material they had to produce was quite formidable. I am certainly not surprised that on the last page of the report they do not advise other Peers to undergo a similar ordeal. If I may say so, I think the Minister was pitching it rather high, despite the work of the committee, in suggesting that the whole concept of this should be one of the most important propositions in Europe. We shall wait and see about that, but certainly he is aiming right at the top.

Nevertheless, the committee have not persuaded the Opposition, nor the local authorities, nor the other petitioners, of the virtues of an urban development corporation for Docklands, which is what this is all about. Many of the most compelling objections are against the principle of what is an undemocratic and appointed urban development council arbitrarily imposed on the existing local government structure, which once again illustrates central Government poaching on the proper preserve of the local authorities.

During the passage of the Local Government Act we fought very hard in this House, as well as in another place, against the principle of urban development corporations. Unfortunately, that is now murky water under the legislative bridge and so was not a matter before the committee. This has often been compared to the setting up of new towns, but it is quite a different concept. A development corporation can be—and has often been—justified where there are virgin green field sites, or in areas where local authorities have achieved little or nothing. But here we are dealing with Dock-lands with long local government traditions, a long history of local pride and also the complete romance of the docks and the Docklands. Even the early new towns did not have the draconian powers proposed for the Docklands UDC, including the wholesale transfer of planning powers which quite frankly could, even within the concept of a UDC, remain with the borough councils.

The partnership new towns are very much more accountable. As the report points out, significant progress has been made in the Docklands. Indeed, in paragraph 5.2 to paragraph 5.4 the committee lists a few examples of the achievements. If more money had been made available, of course more would have been done, but that was never an option. The Secretary of State made it absolutely clear that there would not be an alternative; the money would not be divided among the boroughs so that it could be joined together or given to the Docklands Joint Committee, which was ready to plan and to carry out the same work if it had been given the money and would then have had a local democratic dimension.

In judging the merits of a UDC as opposed to the Docklands Joint Committee, the Select Committee had no objective measure for assessing what would have been a reasonable rate of progress for the Docklands Joint Committee to have achieved. Consequently, the Select Committee were given an impossible task and I think in places their report shows that they recognised this. There was no evidence to support the sole reason for favouring the setting up of a UDC—that it would be more likely to be successful in attracting private investment. With great respect to the committee, this was a joint subjective judgment which has also been put forward this afternoon by the Minister, but no hard evidence was brought in to prove this.

We still adhere to the view that the UDC was, and still is, misconceived. It is undemocratic, unnecessary and locally friendless. The passage of the legislation and the suppression of the DJC has already caused a hiatus of nearly two years when a great deal more progress could have been made in the Docklands. It has caused uncertainty and delay in the Docklands and there will undoubtedly be more delay and more uncertainty before the new corporation gets under way.

I do not want to nit-pick this afternoon but I must place on the public record four factual corrections to the report. First, in paragraph 2.6 of the Select Committee's report they do not indicate that there were senior officials from the Department of the Environment on the Officers' Steering Group. The importance of that is that under the present arrangements central Government already had an involvement in Docklands. It was not just a local enterprise, and that is the reason why I raise this omission which I consider to be an important one. It affects any value judgment on whether the present system needs to be changed. In other words, not enough weight was given to this although it was on page 38 at day 14 of the transcript.

Secondly, the employment figures could be made a lot clearer. The rather gloomy figures on page 2 of the report make the situation appear worse than it is. For instance, they do not include schemes under construction now and which will be in operation by 1982. I refer to such major schemes as the new Billingsgate Market, which will create approximately 750 jobs, and the News International building with its 4,000 jobs. For these and other reasons no direct comparison is possible with the strategic plans target prepared by the DJC.

Thirdly, when the committee refer in paragraph 6.5 to the housing in the area and the amount of public housing that has already been built, I am afraid that they have got their tenure figures wrong. In Tower Hamlets 82 per cent. of dwellings are council rented, not 97.6 per cent. And the GLC figure should be 30.6 per cent. and not 56 per cent. as stated in the report. This led to certain conclusions being emphasised and drawn which, in my opinion, have thrown things slightly out of gear. Fourthly, in paragraph 9.3, there are 27½ acres of land in St. Katherine's Docks of which four acres are still undeveloped and not 30 acres of land of which 12 acres are undeveloped. Again, I believe that this substantially affects the scale of the problem and also the judgment as to whether a new agency is needed. The Government's main reason—and this came out of the evidence proposing the inclusion of St. Katherine's Docks in the UDA—appears to be the view that Tower Hamlets was a sticky planning authority, despite evidence that there have been 150 planning applications out of which there have been 13 refusals and two appeals, both of which Tower Hamlets won.

What we are being asked to do this afternoon—as the noble Lord, the Minister very carefully, clearly and so ably explained to your Lordships' House—is to transfer from the local authorities only part of the administration of eight square miles of Docklands close to the heart of our capital city to a non-elected "cuckoo" body—as the chief executive of Tower Hamlets described it—however distinguished the chairman and deputy chairman designate may be. In addition, the local authorities will still have elected councillors on the Docklands board, with responsibilities for representing the local population, and they really cannot be expected to work in a state of isolation—and it is quite feasible that they will have to do so if this arrangement does not work out in the way that it should.

The councils, with their vast experience of the area, have unparalleled local knowledge which it would be absurd and irresponsible for the UDC to duplicate. This was apparent from their evidence to the committee, and came out in the committee's report. When the noble Lord the Minister talks about buying-in expertise, as he did when speaking this afternoon, I do hope that it will be impressed upon the corporation that expertise is available literally on its doorstep and that expertise should not be brought in from outside at the expense of the local authority, both economically and socially.

The splitting of the administration of Docklands between democratic and non-elected bodies in this arbitrary way will present all sorts of administrative and social problems, even if those involved do not indulge in a party political dogfight to the detriment of the area; I believe that none of us would wish to see that. Unless exceptional efforts are made to generate goodwill and co-operation, the UDC must be doomed to failure and the Government's grand plan will degenerate into an orgy of recrimination which will leave any future Secretary of State—and this applies to any party—with no option but to wind up the UDC and look for a more accountable mechanism for regeneration. Indeed, I think that after this, and the hybridity, the Government would be very loath to go ahead with these on a "one-off" basis; I hope so, and I hope that the Government will have learned a lesson from this.

The last couple of years have provided very little evidence, unfortunately, that the Secretary of State is prepared to listen. Starting with his meetings with the Docklands leaders in the autumn of 1979, when he said in effect, "I know you will be annoyed but I have made up my mind", the Government have been engaged in continuous sniping and mud-slinging at the local authorities and the record of local authorities. This is consistent with the continuous wide-ranging attacks on local government. We saw this all through the housing legislation and have seen it all through other legislation which is not relevant in respect of today's subject except in the context of the attitudes which have been set, whereby more and more has been taken on by the Secretary of State, and the local authorities have been downgraded and denigrated. The boroughs in the area have been treated very shabbily after they have done so much to get Docklands going.

If this goes through and the Secretary of State wants to make the corporation work, he has many fences to mend and much confidence to restore. He must turn over a new leaf and adopt a co-operative, not an antagonistic stance. He could suggest to the UDC, "Do not do what I do; do what is right". He must listen to arguments and must not dismiss them out of hand, and he must insist that his UDC does the same. The Select Committee heard evidence that in the last 14 years Peterborough Development Corporation has only once proceeded with a scheme in opposition to the local authorities, and I suggest that any new corporation should aim for a similar record in Docklands.

The Select Committee's report rightly stressed this question of good real relations with the local authorities and local organisations in paragraph 8.7. Following the setting up of the corporation, the next step will be laying before Parliament further orders transferring the planning powers to the UDC and the preparation of a code of consultation. Despite its frequently stated desire for co-operation, the Department of the Environment allows the boroughs only seven days to comment on these draft orders. Despite their unhappiness with the Select Committee's conclusions, the boroughs have made lengthy, considered and constructive comments on these draft orders to try to achieve workable machinery. But, based on the Government's previous attitude towards their point of views, the boroughs are very apprehensive that the Government are merely going though the motions of consultation and do not really mean it. To help overcome these problems, there are five areas where we are asking for assurances from the Government. It would be a great help if, when the noble Lord the Minister winds up this afternoon, he is able to give me these assurances.

First, it would go a long way towards improving relations between the Government and the boroughs if the noble Lord the Minister would give me an assurance that he will consider their comments very carefully and will refrain from laying the orders until all the issues raised have been thoroughly discussed. Secondly, the code of consultation must be worked out jointly and mutually agreed between all those concerned—otherwise, it really cannot work. Will the Minister give an assurance that the code will be ap- proved only if it is mutually agreed? Thirdly, will the noble Lord the Minister assure your Lordships' House that the Secretary of State will expect the UDC to make provision in its plans for Docklands for the future needs of all the various local authority services in East London? This must be a major element in any package of proposals he approves or he will not win any confidence at all in the area. Fourth, does the noble Lord the Minister accept that the UDC must take full advantage of the accumulated experience of the GLC and the boroughs in carrying out its functions? When the corporation is eventually wound up the local authorities will once again assume responsibility for whatever has been done in the meantime. Therefore, they must be allowed to add their invaluable experience to the preparation of worthwhile proposals.

Finally, in paragraph 8.6 of its report, the Select Committee advises the chairman of the development corporation to,

"look ahead and have in mind the probable future needs of a borough for land for public housing".

The noble Lord the Minister has commented on this aspect this afternoon, but I should like a further assurance that the Department of the Environment will also feel bound by this advice when considering whether to lay vesting orders. The Government have a great deal to gain by giving these assurances. They are not outrageous suggestions; indeed they are highly constructive, responsible and reasonable. Having stirred up all this antagonism between local and central Government in Docklands, I feel it is now encumbent upon Ministers to repair that damage. The UDC should be used as a mechanism to forge a new partnership between the Department of the Environment, the GLC, the boroughs and local organisations until such time—if indeed these orders do go through—as democratic control of their affairs is rightly returned to the local communities.

My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by the Prime Minister. I will repeat it in her own words:

"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement on the meeting of the European Council in Luxembourg on 29th and 30th June, which I attended with my noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The meeting also gave me the opportunity to have a first and very friendly meeting with the new President of France, Monsieur Mitterrand.

"At the end of the Council's meeting the presidency gave a summary of the discussions on Community matters and we issued an agreed press statement on a number of international questions. I have placed copies of both these texts in the Library of the House.

"The discussion on the economic situation provided a valuable occasion for hearing the views of all the Heads of Government, three of whom were attending the European Council for the first time. The Commission gave us a useful analysis of the prospects. The Council saw the first cautious signs of limited improvement in the business cycle, even though inflation and unemployment have by no means been brought under control. On objectives we were all agreed: we must overcome unemployment and inflation and return to a situation of economic growth, stability and satisfactory levels of employment. We recognised, however, that the major responsibility for tackling these problems lies with national Governments because action needs to take account of the different economic situations in each member state. The differing levels of inflation, unemployment, balance of payments and budget deficits mean differing constraints and opportunities for member countries.

"The effectiveness of action by national Governments can be increased by co-ordination within a community framework. We were particularly concerned that full use should be made of the Community's financial instruments and of the facilities of the European Investment Bank to promote the flow of productive investment, including the growth potential in small and medium businesses.

"We recognised that the changing patterns of world trade mean structural changes in our own industries. The focus should be on investment in industries with potential for the future rather than on economic activities that are bound to decline in importance.

"There was agreement on the need to improve the Community's internal market both for goods and for services like insurance and air fares; which are of special importance to this country.

"We also reviewed the matters for discussion at the forthcoming Economic Summit meeting in Ottawa. The level and volatility of interest and exchange rates could retard economic recovery in the Community. Discussion will need to be pursued with the other major monetary powers.

"On trade, the Council discussed the threat to the smooth functioning of the world trading system which comes from the excessive concentration of Japanese exports on sensitive sectors. Further it stressed the need for the Japanese market to be effectively open to foreign trade. This will need to be pursued within the Community and at Ottawa.

"We also approved the recent report of the Foreign Affairs Council on North-South policy.

"On the recent report of the Commission about the Community budget and changes in the common agricultural policy, a satisfactory impetus was given to further work. The first stage is to clarify the Commission's document to see, for example, how the budgetary proposals could affect each member state.

"In September a special group will be set up to assist the General Affairs Council to make thorough and timely preparations for the next meeting of the European Council to be held in November under our presidency. The United Kingdom assumes the presidency of the Community today, and it is our intention to do all we can to press forward with these discussions, which are so important for the future of the Community, with the objective of reaching agreement within the timetable laid down last May.

"The European Council also discussed the Middle East. As the communiqué makes clear, the Ten must review the results of the contacts established by the Dutch presidency on the basis of the Venice declaration. In consultation with the United States and the parties concerned, it will be for the Ten to consider how best to make an effective contribution towards a comprehensive peace settlement in the Middle East.

"The European Council approved and published a proposal on Afghanistan which has been in preparation for some time and is the result of a British initiative. The purpose is to establish the framework for a political solution which all the parties concerned accept as the objective. The proposal for an international conference in two stages builds upon earlier proposals, and offers, we believe, a reasonable basis for the peaceful solution of a problem which remains an important cause of international tension. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary will fly to Moscow on Sunday for talks about the proposal with the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union. An initiative designed to restore the independent and non-aligned status of Afghanistan is a constructive and distinctive way to mark the start today of the British presidency of the Ten."

My Lords, the House will wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement. The whole House will be very glad to hear about his visit to Moscow for discussions on Afghanistan and will wish him success. We note that he himself puts his chances at only about 50/50, but we still welcome this more positive approach; and we welcome the fact that he seems to have persuaded our American allies to move more in the direction of discussion.

My Lords, the Summit clearly had slightly less enthusiasm for the EEC initiative on the Middle East. We should like to ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that in many parts of the House, and indeed in the country, there will be disappointment that there was no reference in the Summit to the question of disarmament, especially at a time when President Brezhnev appears to have been making approaches on this matter.

We were delighted to hear that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Prime Minister had such a very friendly meeting with M. Mitterrand. Is the noble Lord aware that we should like the Government to incline very much more towards M. Mitterand's approach to economic policy than they have in the past? It is interesting that The Times said this morning:

"There is a philosophical gulf which separates Britain from any of her EEC partners on planned reform of the budget and on spending policies".

Does the noble Lord not think that, in spite of the agreements which he has described, there is a risk of this country incurring isolation from our Community partners, both on support for United States high interest high dollar policies and on priorities between unemployment and inflation?

We welcome the agreements that were arrived at, but we are worried that the real budget reform issues and the common agricultural policy seem very little nearer solution, and that even with the working group starting up in September we may lose the initiative on reform of the budget during our own presidency.

My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the Foreign Secretary for repeating this Statement. It is, however, very difficult to make any reasonable comment when one has hardly had time to read it in advance. I do hope that in future we shall at least have five minutes to do so.

Having said that, I have very few comments to make. I note that the Prime Minister says:

"We also reviewed the matters for discussion at the forthcoming Economic Summit meeting in Ottawa. The level and volatility of interest and exchange rates could retard economic recovery in the Community".

Is there not a case in those circumstances for our joining the European Monetary System? I have heard it suggested that that would be a very reasonable thing for Her Majesty's Government to do at the beginning of the British presidency.

Then we see that there has been some discussion on how to combat excessive Japanese exports. Is there any likelihood of a common policy on how to cope with this matter? It is rather difficult to see from the Statement whether this is even contemplated, but I hope it will be. Broadly speaking, on economic matters I imagine that, though every effort will be made to achieve some kind of convergence of the policies of the Ten, is it not likely that this will be increasingly difficult if the new French Government pursue a very different economic policy from the ones being pursued in this country? Surely some kind of compromise will have to be come to on that before the end of the year; otherwise, I am afraid, the Community may be in some danger of breaking up.

With regard to Foreign Affairs, I imagine the Foreign Secretary would agree that in the Middle East everything will very much depend on what happens in the Israeli election. We still do not know—perhaps the Foreign Secretary does—whether the present Prime Minister of Israel is going to continue. If he is, I myself would think that the chances of arriving at a reasonable solution would be pro tanto less, but that is a matter for discussion.

Finally, as regards Afghanistan, we can only all wish the Foreign Secretary good luck in Moscow. I am sure we can all agree that the general plan adumbrated in the Council for presentation to the Russians is inherently reasonable. I have heard it said that it is possible that the Russians, in spite of the Afghan Government's having apparently turned this suggestion down, will overrule it and agree to a conference on condition that it is extended, becoming wide-ranging and embracing such matters as the Middle East. Does the Foreign Secretary think that there is any possibility of the Russians moving in that direction? That is all that I have to say at present.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, and to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for what they have said about Afghanistan. I think that the proposal that we have made is reasonable and I can only hope that the Soviet Union will think so too—anyway, it will be my object to persuade them of it. I would just add that the reception which has been given to our proposal from those whom we consulted before we made it public, has been very encouraging, and I hope that that will be a good augury for the future.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, commented about the economy and what I think the noble Baroness called the "philosophical gulf" between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and the President of France. It is not, in a way, so very odd that there should be a political gulf when one is a socialist and the other is a Conservative. I do not find that particularly odd.

My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, but in fact I quoted from The Times which said that there was a philosophical gulf between this country and all the other EEC countries.

My Lords, I was just coming to that. I do not find it at all odd that there should be a philosophical gulf between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and President Mitterrand. Indeed—since one is a socialist and the other is a Conservative—as a Conservative it would worry me considerably if there were not such a gulf.

But I think that the noble Baroness is quite wrong if she thinks that this country was isolated in Luxembourg yesterday in the discussion on the economy. Had she been there she would have found that that was not so. Nor was there the sort of argument which I think she supposed there might have been. The discussion was about the individual problems of each country and how they could be reconciled. It is impossible, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, surely must realise, that 10 sovereign countries with Governments of different complexions and political beliefs, should adopt the same economic policy in their countries. They all have a variety of different circumstances; they all have different inflation rates and different unemployment rates; some of them have balance of payments deficits and some have not. They all have very considerably different circumstances and the discussion ranged around that. There was certainly no philosophical gulf or isolation in the sense that the noble Baroness was talking about.

I agree with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, about the need to press on with budgetary reform. We shall certainly do that, and we shall press forward as hard as we can. But, of course, it would be idle to deny that it will not be difficult. Obviously, there are very considerable national interests at stake here. However, I think that we have started well. The Commission has made some proposals which, on the whole, have been fairly favourably received although they are in fairly general terms at present. We obviously must do what we can to get a solution by the end of the year, and that I pledge we shall do.

On Japan, the Community did decide yesterday that on the Japanese problem there should be a Community approach and not individual national approaches, and it also agreed that this, of course, would have to be raised at the Ottawa Conference later this month.

I agree also with what the noble Lord said about the Middle East. I think that we must wait and see what the results of the election yesterday will bring, what the Government will be, and, of course, discuss with our allies how to make a move forward.

I probably have not answered all the questions that have been raised, but I should like to end by apologising both to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, and to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for the delay in the arrival of the copies of the Statement. I can only apologise and accept responsibility for it, although, of course, it was not my fault!

My Lords, as regards Afghanistan we on this Bench are happy to find yet another occasion when the Foreign Secretary seems to be doing the right thing in the right way. However, on disarmament, we share the regret expressed by the Opposition that nothing appears to have been said about it at the Summit meeting. May we hope that it was just an omission from the Statement and that there was, in fact, a discussion of it?—because the silence from the Western camp is now becoming a bit deafening on this subject.

Finally, as regards Japan, can the Foreign Secretary elucidate the rather startling phraseology:

"excessive Japanese concentration on sensitive sectors".

If one reads it one finds that it looks almost as though we are accusing the Japanese of malicious policy in this respect; whereas I am sure that that is not the real intention. What is a "sensitive sector"? Is it a sector where people are likely to be thrown out of work by excessive Japanese efficiency? If that is all that it is, is the argument not rather circular?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his opening remarks. On disarmament, that, of course, is a matter which is usually taken in NATO and not at economic summits. Decisions have been taken in NATO about arms limitation talks on the TNF. I really do not think that there was very much more to be said at this Summit, but, of course, all of us are in favour of arms limitation provided that it is to the advantage of everybody, and we hope very much that that will go forward later this year.

As regards "sensitivity" what the Statement means, in effect, to put it crudely, is motor-cars and electronics. The motorbicycle industry went bust in this country because of Japanese imports and we do not want to see that happen to two other industries.

My Lords, having regard to the reference of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the Middle East, whatever the outcome of the present election may be, there will have to be discussions by various countries on the future peace in the Middle East. I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will bear in mind that it is, in the view of a good many people in this country, essential that the PLO should recognise before there are any discussions at all, that they must accept the state of Israel as being a fact, that they must recognise it and give that undertaking before any discussions, official or unofficial, take place.

My Lords, I think that I have said on a number of occasions that it would not be reasonable to ask the Israelis to sit down and negotiate with a body which is said to be set upon the destruction of the state of Israel. I do not think that that would be reasonable. I hope, therefore, that—and this is really repeating the Venice declaration—the Arabs will recognise the state of Israel and that Israel will recognise the rights of the Palestinians.

My Lords, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned foreign exchanges and interest rates. Would my noble friend agree that the fluctuations in the foreign exchange market over the last few months show that joining the EMS will not achieve its object, and that we must have the Americans in as well or there will be no stability in exchange rates? Do the European Ministers realise that?

My Lords, I think that perhaps some would say that the EMS, even without us, has evened-out some of the fluctuations in European currencies. I think that it has been our fear that sterling, because it is rather volatile, particularly because it is an oil currency, is in rather a separate position. I do not believe that the events of the last few weeks have made us change our mind about that. But there is no doubt that we would want to join the EMS as soon as we believed that we could.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to particularise on two specific matters that are included in the Statement. The Statement says that there was agreement:

"on the need to improve the Community's internal market both for goods and for services like insurance and air fares".

It is my recollection that agreement on the need to improve, particularly in the realm of services such as insurance, has been the aim for a long time. Over the last six or seven years all states have expressed themselves on the need to improve the internal market and, indeed, in the case of insurance, to open up the market to the insurance companies of this country.

However, is the noble Lord aware that there has been continued obstruction by at least two member states on opening up the insurance market to insurance operators in this country? Can the noble Lord not say whether they went just a little further than agreement on the need to improve? What actual matters were discussed in specific terms, and is it likely that before the end of the British presidency there will, in fact, be some endeavour to bring in the appropriate directive, which is the No. 2 Directive?

The second question that I have to ask relates to the budget, where the Statement says:

"a satisfactory impetus was given to further work".

Just what does the term "a satisfactory impetus" mean? Is the noble Lord aware that his right honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, speaking last March, was very gloomy about the prospect of achieving any significant changes—and I repeat the word "significant"—in the Community's common agricultural policy? Does this Statement mean that his right honourable friend's pessimism is now no longer justified and that there is an immediate prospect of achieving those fundamental reforms to the common agricultural policy which, in the view of his right honourable friend the Prime Minister, are vitally necessary this time?

My Lords, on the noble Lord's first question, the four areas in which I hope that during our presidency we can make some progress are insurance, air fares, banking and the recognition of professional qualifications. I am, of course, as well aware as he is of what has happened. I think that I would perhaps put it a different way and not so elegantly; I would have said that it has got stuck, and I think that we have to unstick it. That will be the objective of the next six months; we shall try to push it along. Whether or not we shall succeed I do not know, but that is what we shall try to do.

With regard to the budget, "satisfactory impetus" means that we were all agreed upon the procedure which we should follow. Understandably, the French Government in particular—and also others who are more or less in the same position—were not prepared as a new Administration to talk in substance about the budget problems because they have not had a chance of looking at it in detail. Therefore, we agreed that they should have time to study their own position. In the meantime, the permanent representatives would clarify a number of issues on the Commission Paper, which itself, as the noble Lord will know having read the paper, proposes a number of structural changes in the common agricultural policy. They would clarify a number of those points and in September a new body would be set up which would go into the substance, and the French would then be ready to join in on matters of substance. I do not talk in terms of optimism or pessimism, but in terms of realism. It will be difficult, but we must try.

My Lords, has the noble Lord any intention in his forthcoming visit to Moscow, or will he have any opportunity, of getting in touch with the Russian Orthodox Church? I ask the question for the specific reason that there is evidence of an increasing determination by that Church to press their peace counsel further than I think the authorities are inclined to approve; yet at the same time there is an increased sense—according to the documents that I receive from time to time—that the Church is taking a more independent line with regard to peace-making. I do not know whether this is within the schedule of the Foreign Secretary, but I suggest that it could be of considerable importance.

My Lords, my visit will be very short indeed. I shall only be there on Monday and will be returning Monday night. I think that it would be very unlikely that I should have time to do that. In the context of the purpose of my visit, I am not entirely sure that this would be quite the right moment to do it.

My Lords, in his opening Statement the noble Lord seemed to suggest that on economic policy the differences are not as wide as the newspapers have suggested. I should like to ask him to tell us a little more about President Mitterrand's ideas. Was not it a very familiar, conventional and modest idea that M. Mitterrand put forward for a selected, co-ordinated European expansion in the hope of its having some impact on unemployment? Can the noble Lord tell us why these ideas in the inspired headline of Le Monde incited the reticence of both Mr. Schmidt and the Prime Minister?

My Lords, I really do not think that this is quite the right moment to go into President Mitterrand's policy, which was fully set out in his election programme and which is well known to the noble Lord. Equally, the noble Lord will know the Prime Minister's position if he reads her speeches. I do not think that it would be particularly fruitful for me to embark on a précis of their two economic policies. I was trying to say that there was a general recognition that each country had its own problems which were particular to it, and obviously each country has its own Government.

My Lords, I should like to ask two brief questions on two points that were mentioned by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. One is on Afghanistan. I suggest that much pressure may be placed on the noble Lord to move along a track which would possibly, if not intentionally, weaken the strength of the United Nations in dealing with this whole question, which it will have to do at some time. Without being patronising, will the noble Lord be extremely careful about the possibility of giving away United Nations points without their being mentioned as such?

My second question is on France. All of us who have some first-hand acquaintance in dealing with France must have been very unhappy over recent months. Will the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary make a very strong effort—as I am sure he will, although possibly not in official meetings—in dealing with our French friends to try to remove some of the acidity, which is not our fault, which has featured in some of our recent relations?

My Lords, the answer to the second question is, yes. I want to see, just as everybody in your Lordships' House would want to see, good relations with France. On the first question, it is certainly not the intention of the initiative agreed by the Ten yesterday to cut across anything that the United Nations is doing or will do. Indeed, as the noble Lord will know, it is proposed that the Secretary-General of the United Nations or his representative should be a member of the conference. So there is no question of cutting across the United Nations. Indeed, we told the Secretary-General of the United Nations about these proposals earlier on and he has welcomed the initiative.

My Lords, when the question of Afghanistan comes under discussion, will the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary bear in mind that any successor régime to the present Soviet-backed régime is not likely to be a democracy—certainly not a western-type democracy—but a type of régime compared with which the present Government in Iran would be regarded as liberal and progressive?

My Lords, I think that is travelling a good deal further down the road than the point we have reached at the present time.

My Lords, may I congratulate the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary on his miracle idea of going to Moscow to put a stop to the suspicion and threats that have been the main part of our policy, and the American policy, towards the Soviet Union?

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. I think the idea is all right; the miracle may be a little bit later.

My Lords, I suggest that we should now move on.

My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for the kind things which they have said about the work of the Select Committee. Speaking for myself, I enjoyed the work very much. Law Lords tend to lead a rather isolated existence in your Lordships' House, and it was a rewarding experience for me to be able to work day in and day out with four working Peers in your Lordships' House, and to become friends of them. At the same time, I do not think that any of us would have volunteered for the job if we had realised that it was not going to take the predicted three weeks but a period of nine or ten weeks.

I have no doubt that it is good for the public image of your Lordships' House that we should consider these hybrid orders very carefully and in a judicial spirit, and perhaps all the more so because there is no analogous procedure in another place. But at the same time I hope that it may be possible for the Procedure Committee to look into the procedure, and see whether some changes in it might be devised which would make it unnecessary in a subsequent case to have quite such a volume of oral evidence called as was called in this case.

The question on which we were asked to report was whether the London Docklands were a suitable area for the establishment of a development corporation. Our report sets out, I hope clearly, the chief arguments advanced on each side for or against the setting up of the corporation, and the conclusion that we reached I think, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, that the Government had made out their case. All that I would seek to do this afternoon, if you will allow me, is simply to mention a few salient points which impressed me.

First and foremost is the immensity of the task which faces anybody which is setting out to regenerate Dock-lands. Of course, from statistics and maps and photographs one can learn a great deal, but it was really faces any body which is setting out to regenerate Dock-lands on the top of a double-decker bus that I really came to realise what vast areas of land—land not far from the centre of the capital—had become vacant and derelict through the gradual decay and indeed virtual disappearance of the Port of London.

Of course as we stress in our report, and as the noble Baroness has mentioned, a great deal has been done, and is being done, by the three borough councils. I should like to mention again here what we say in our report, that we were all of us—I think I may speak for my collegaues—very favourably impressed with the quality of the borough officers who gave evidence before us. But there is no doubt whatever that in Docklands population is continuing to decline and jobs to decrease, and there is a crying need—I think there can be no doubt of this—for the attraction of new industry into the area.

It seems to me that it is a fact—some of your Lordships may think it a regrettable fact, but nevertheless a fact—that a body appointed by the Secretary of State, with a chairman like the chairman designate of the corporation, is more likely to attract private investment into Docklands than the three elected borough councils, especially if one bears in mind that those councils, as well as being concerned with the Dockland part of their area, have all the rest of their respective boroughs to concern themselves with and cannot approach the problem of Docklands in the single-minded spirit in which I think, or I hope, the corporation would approach it.

That really is the chief consideration which moved me to come down in favour of the setting up of this corporation. But an allied consideration related to it is that the corporation would, I think, undoubtedly be in a better position to, and more inclined to, encourage the building of a certain number of private houses in Dockland. Of course in the nature of the case the preponderant need in Docklands must always be for public rented accommodation, public rented housing, and one hopes that a time may soon come when the Dockland boroughs will have money to enable them not only to modernise their existing housing stock but to build more small houses—not, one hopes, tower blocks—with gardens, for rent. But I think in spite of what was said by the noble Baroness on the figures—our figures may not be absolutely right—there cannot be any doubt that there is an unduly small proportion of private housing in Docklands, and if you are going to attract industry into the area I think it is desirable that there should be a reasonable supply of moderately priced houses to attract employees, and for the use of employees.

Those are the two chief considerations which moved me—the attraction of industry, and the building of a certain number of moderately priced private houses. In conclusion, I would say that I welcome the decision of the Government—I gather rather unwillingly arrived at—to exclude the Mint site from the area of the development corporation. As some of your Lordships may know, it is an important site at the corner of Tower Hill, but it is not part of Docklands, and the fact that it is now ripe for development has nothing whatever to do with the decay of the Port of London but is merely caused by the fact that the Mint has moved away and the coins are made elsewhere.

So far as I could gather, the chief reason why the Secretary of State and his advisers wanted to include the site, although not part of Docklands, in the Dockland regeneration area was that they did not trust the Tower Hamlets Borough Council to use their powers to control the development of the site in a way which the Secretary of State and his advisers would think a sensible and desirable way. I think we all, both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness, are at one in saying that it is all important that the new corporation, if it comes into existence, should win the confidence of the borough councils and work in harmony with them. It seems to me that anything which would lend colour to the idea that the establishment of the corporation is an attack by a Tory Minister on the Labour-controlled East End boroughs is much to be deprecated. After all, Governments change. Before the Corporation has done its work of regenerating Docklands, we may have another Government of a different political complexion, and that Government may be under pressure from some quarters to abolish this corporation even though it is working very well. The fact that the Mint site was included, for the reasons I have stated, in the development area is to my mind just the sort of thing opponents of the corporation might make play with, and for that reason I am glad to see that the Government have agreed to accept our recommendation to exclude it.

My Lords, I intervene briefly to make two short points. First, I join my noble friend Lord Bellwin and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, for his very skilful chairmanship of this committee, and to thank the committee for their hard work and feat of physical endurance over this long period. I think I must take the responsibility first of all for advising the committee that it might last only three weeks when, as your Lordships know, it lasted nine or ten weeks, and therefore I thank them with even greater sincerity.

The statistics have already been mentioned—that they sat for 50 days and saw 38 witnesses—and the only additional figure I have is that the transcript runs to 3,406 pages. This herculean labour has resulted in a succinct, readable and closely-argued report and a unanimously agreed one, which is a considerable achievement on the part of the committee. Perhaps, like members of a jury, they should now be excused from service for the rest of their lives, but I think your Lordships would agree that would be far too great a loss to this House to contemplate. In thanking them all, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to convey, through the noble and learned Lord, our apologies to Lady Cross, who must have suffered a good deal of inconvenience as a result of the duration of the committee.

My second point is simply to respond to the committee's third recommendation; namely, that the Select Committee on Procedure of the House should consider the procedure on hybrid orders in the light of the proceedings on this order. As the noble and learned Lord said, this House is unique in giving private interests a right to petition and, on occasions, state their case to a Select Committee against an affirmative order which is hybrid, and I guess that this is a right which your Lordships would wish to retain. It is a constitutional safeguard that does not exist in another place. But I also agree with the committee that the procedure involved needs to be examined in order to avoid a repetition of so lengthy a process, and I certainly undertake that the matter will be referred to the Procedure Committee as early as possible.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, who was the chairman of the Select Committee, generously said that it was a rewarding experience for him to go through this task with four working Peers. As the first of them to speak in this debate, I think I can safely say on behalf of the other three noble Lords that it was an equally rewarding experience for us to be guided through this marathon by the noble and learned Lord, who throughout guided us with skill, patience and good humour. I called it a marathon, while the Chairman of Committees described it as a herculean task. Hercules did many great things but I do not think he ever ran in a marathon, so I must not mix metaphors.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross, said that we arrived at our conclusions with varying degrees of enthusiasm. I had a few misgivings and I think I can most usefully spend my time by briefly expressing and explaining them. The first concerns the national interest. In paragraph 3.1 of our report we refer to the fact that the 1980 Act permits the setting up of urban development corporations, and we say:

"The Secretary of State may, if he thinks it expedient in the national interest, designate as an urban development area an area of land".

The words "in the national interest" must mean something.

The principal witness for the Government, an Under-Secretary, at one stage ill his evidence described the Docklands as London's backyard. That raised in my mind the question: could it be said that London's backyard, as distinct from, say, S.W.1., was truly in the national interest as distinct from purely local interest? Old Father Thames, meandering along and driving a great wide highway right up into the heart of the City, is of enormous national interest and I would happily have settled for an organisation rather smaller than what is proposed, collaborating with the riverside local authorities to develop and regenerate the riverside on both banks all the way from the Pool of London right down to the Thames barrier, leaving the hinterland of the Docklands behind the river frontage to be the responsibility of the local authorities, being land of purely local interest. I imagine that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would agree with the last part of what I just said. However, 1 could not deny that any large urban area in need of regeneration must to some extent be a matter of national interest, and therefore I must go along with my colleagues on that.

In paragraph 3.6 we refer to the large funds being made available, especially to the UDC if it is set up, and we say:

"The Committee were also told that if the UDC were not appointed, the availability of this money would be uncertain because the UDC is the Secretary of State's chosen instrument for the regeneration of the docklands".

What about Parliament's chosen instrument? If the two coincide, that is fine; but I should have been much happier, and I believe my fellow members on the committee would have been happier too, if we could have been told that this extra money will be made available for the development of Docklands by whatever means Parliament, not the Secretary of State, decides is the best way of tackling the job.

In paragraph 6.3—this was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross—we say:

"… each borough is necessarily as much concerned for the parts of its area which lie outside docklands as for the parts which lie inside it and cannot possibly have a single minded concern for the regeneration of 'docklands' as a whole".

That raised in my mind this question: if it is wrong for the established local authority to do something, does it become right to do it if you shackle the local authority and set up some other organisation to do what it would not be right for the local authority to do? I was rather troubled about that, but I was consoled by the fact that in the first sentence of paragraph 8.8 of our report we were able to state:

"The Committee are very conscious that to transfer development control over so wide an area from democratically elected councils to a body appointed by the Secretary of State is a step which is not easily to be justified, especially in an area such as docklands where the attachment to local democracy was shown to be so strong …".

If we learned one thing throughout this marathon or herculean task, it was the strength of the feeling among the local community. It has been said that a percipient observer, someone such as Sir Nikolaus Pevsner, can still see in London the signs that London was once simply a collection of villages which gradually became joined together, and certainly the local community spirit in Docklands is, I believe, as strong as that which one can find anywhere in the country.

The only other matter that gave me disquiet arises from the last sentence in paragraph 8.4 of our report, which reads as follows:

"it is to be remembered that council tenants now have the right to buy their homes, and this may contribute to a solution of the problem".

That sentence is in one of the few parts of the report in which I had some hand in the drafting, and I must confess that, given a free hand, I would have made more of this point. It is early days to know how strongly the right to buy a council house will catch on among tenants. I think that it was only last autumn that the right to buy was established. I believe that it might catch on to a very considerable extent and might make nonsense of some of the calculations that were made before last autumn about proportions of public and private housing which would be desirable.

Very heavy weather was made by witnesses before the committee of striving to achieve exact proportions of public and private housing, not simply throughout the Docklands as a whole, but in every single, separate area. But on the other hand, one of the witnesses before us told us what I think must be self-evident to many of your Lordships: that Londoners have the habit of commuting very considerable distances between their homes and their place of work. Therefore, it seems to me that what is important is to get right the housing mix, between public and private over London as a whole, and not to strive to get it right in every single, small area. I believe that if one does so strive in every single, small area, the new right to buy council houses, so turning public housing into private housing, will make nonsense of some of the calculations that are to be made.

My final point is allied to that. We were told much about the need to attract to the Docklands the key workers in industry. I suppose that the key workers are the warrant officers and the NCOs of the industrial world, and we were told that private housing would be necessary in order to attract these important people into the Docklands. I can only say that if I were a key worker in industry, being offered a job in Dock-lands, and being told, "There is a private house available for you, you can take out a mortgage, buy it and settle in it", I might be rather daunted by that prospect. But let us suppose that I were told, "You can rent a council house, take your job, see how you settle into it and into the neighbourhood and enjoy life there, and then if you do, at the end of three years"—or whatever is the qualifying period—"you will have your opportunity to purchase your council house". I should have thought that that would be a much more attractive proposition to put before one of the key workers in industry. I have come to the end of my catalogue of reservations. I feel better for having ventilated them, and I hope that my remarks will have contributed to the debate.

My Lords, in participating in the debate I feel that perhaps first should declare an interest, in that the Government in their London Docklands Development Corporation Order 1980 originally proposed that the Royal Mint site should be included within the urban development area; that the Royal Mint site should come within the planning authority and the ambit of the development corporation. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, has already said, the Select Committee, when it considered this matter, recommended that the site should lie outside the area of the urban development authority. The committee felt, quite understandably, that the Royal Mint site did not really historically form part of the Docklands. The site is in fact owned in large measure by the Crown Estate, and it is as First Commissioner of the Crown Estate that I feel I should declare an interest.

I imagine that the site of the Royal Mint is very well known to all of your Lordships. The area that we are discussing under the amendment order is a substantial one; it amounts in all to about six acres. Because of the slope of the land, it is in an extraordinarily dominant situation. Without any question, it is a site of great significance to the whole surrounding area. First, there is the commercial importance of the area. It lies on the eastern edge of the City. It is also a site of great historical importance, being very close to the Tower of London and Tower Bridge, and it is an area to which many visitors and tourists coming to London almost automatically gravitate. Within the site there is an important classical building. The whole complex of buildings which constituted the Royal Mint were originally designed by John Johnson, and on his death in 1807 the building was completed by Sir Robert Smirke. I think it fair to say that this classical building contributed in its own right to the fact that the area is designated as the Tower Outstanding Conservation Area. I suspect that those features of the Royal Mint site are known to all of your Lordships.

However, in addition to those features, the site has a strategic importance, in that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said, it is the natural gateway to the Docklands. The London Docklands Development Corporation—and I think everyone who is, or has been, concerned with the regeneration of the dockland area—sees this part of East Smithfield as being the gateway to the Docklands. When the redevelopment of the Docklands and of this area has taken place, it will be through this part of East Smithfield that commerce, traffic and population will flow into the docklands.

In the eyes of the Crown Estate Commissioners, the situation demands, and must receive, a quite outstanding development. It is our purpose to strive for something of quite unusually high quality for the area—high quality architecture, workmanship and materials, and high quality landscape design for the area. At the very least, the development which is undertaken must be compatible, I should have thought, with what is going to be done in the St. Katharine's Docks site, which lies immediately across the road, south of the Mint.

One of the most exciting possibilities which presents itself because of the redevelopment of the whole area is that of creating a physical link between the Royal Mint site and the St. Katharine's Docks—in fact, creating for the Royal Mint site a dockside frontage which does not exist at all at the moment. Preliminary talks have already taken place with the owners of the St. Katharine's site, and these preliminary talks show that the owners of the St. Katharine's site share wholeheartedly and enthusiastically the commissioners' feeling that, here, a very great architectural and landscape opportunity presents itself.

I think I can give an indication of the scale of what we have in mind. The Mint site, to which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, and myself are referring, is very large indeed. It is six acres. But in addition the area of the St. Katharine's site which is going to be developed, and to which we would hope to undertake a landscape linking and architectural linking, is a further 28 acres. This, together, could form a unique area of high quality development facing, in one direction, towards the City and constituting, in the other direction, a gateway to the Docklands. Such a development would, of course, be situated right in the very heart of one of the most historic areas of London.

Our only anxiety at the committee's recommendation lies in the fact that the two gateposts of this gateway to the City that I am describing will lie within the ambit of two different planning authorities. The planning authority for St. Katharine's will be the corporation; the planning authority for the Royal Mint site will be the London borough of Tower Hamlets. It is therefore absolutely essential that the two planning authorities agree to the basic approach and the main elements of development. The necessary architectural and landscaping harmony which one needs for both sides of the gateway will be tragically lost if there is not full agreement between the two planning authorities. The task will be something like building a great arch, the two pillars of which are within the responsibility of different authorities; but, of course, in the case of a development of this importance and on this scale the complexity is infinitely greater than the mere building of an arch.

The commissioners are quite sure that the Secretary of State will be aware of this aspect, and that he will feel satisfied that the matters can be appropriately handled so that none of the really great opportunity which lies before London will in fact be lost. I should like to express the hope that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will be able to confirm this view, and also endorse on behalf of the Government the Crown Estate Commissioners' approach to their redevelopment task. If he could confirm this it would be a great reassurance to the Crown Estate Commissioners in their task of creating a really worthwhile development which is so important to London and which, I believe, will play a major part in the regeneration of the Docklands.

My Lords, may I first add my tribute to the chairman of the Select Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea? He steered the long proceedings with such unerring skill and unfailing good humour that I am sure the whole House will feel greatly in his debt. For those of us who sat with the noble and learned Lord it was an educational experience which will stand us in good stead if we should ever be selected for such tasks again—but the House might reasonably decide that we are by now over age!

The committee will also be grateful for the appreciative remarks made by the noble Lord the Minister and by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I regret that the noble Baroness does not agree with the establishment of an Urban Development Corporation, but I shall try to do my best to persuade her as if she were present. The noble Earl is concerned about the Mint site. So, indeed, was the committee. We appreciated the supreme importance of it; but we could not get away from the fact that it is not part of Docklands, and I think we also took into account the fact that the Crown Estate Commissioners were big boys and could probably fight for themselves.

Before embarking on what I believe to be the main issue, may I briefly refer to one matter to which no reference is made in our report owing to our wish to keep that document to a reasonable length? Scattered throughout the area are a vast number of buildings of some architectural merit, mostly warehouses of the Victorian era. They are attractive in their Dickensian way, and many should of course be preserved to retain some of the character of the area; but I think it was the general view of the committee that the department should consider whether future development will not be inhibited by the number of preservation orders which have been made. The buildings were not too well constructed, and conversion to other uses is neither easy nor cheap. They also tend to be situated, for obvious reasons, on the banks of the Thames—the most attractive sites for future projects, of whatever kind those may be.

I now turn to the subject which has exercised me most during the course of the inquiry—the fears of the petitioners against the order. A distinction must naturally be made between the fears of the boroughs and those of the community groups, though some are shared. In the case of the boroughs, their civic pride is obviously hurt, for some of the powers they have until now exercised will pass to others. One witness compared the arrival of an Urban Development Corporation with the dissolution of the monasteries, but I shall not burden the House with that fantasy.

The boroughs mind very much that Government money is to be channelled through the UDC and not through them. They are alarmed that their great local knowledge will not be heeded by the UDC. They believe that they possess the entrepreneurial spirit that is required, if only the funds are available to them. They are apprehensive that their electorate will be giving them hell for developments over which they will not have control. They see their land for public housing disappearing for office blocks and picturesque pads for folk from Chelsea and Hampstead.

These are valid concerns, genuinely held. If the UDC is set up, it will be imperative for it to acknowledge them and to ensure that harmony prevails between their organisation and the borough councils. I see no reason why this should not happen. The boroughs got on very well with the Docklands Joint Committee, though that body was, of course, largely their own creature—and a fairly ineffectual one, at that. Might they not welcome a gutsier set-up; one with teeth, that can acquire the land that the statutory undertakers cling on to, that knows the ropes in the City and has access to the Secretary of State? Provided the issue of land for public housing is resolved, I foresee the likelihood of great progress being made.

The fears of the community groups are of a different sort and, although I have sympathy and, I hope, understanding for them, it is to a lesser degree. I should be able to tell your Lordships how many of the groups there are in Docklands, but they are born and they wither, they spawn and they amalgamate and no two articulate activists weaving their way through them all could produce the right number. The total is surely close to three figures.

The most potent of them is the Docklands Forum, and potent it unquestionably is. While leading counsel for the boroughs in his closing speech strongly disclaimed that there was evidence to support it, your committee had little doubt that the Docklands Forum had in 1980 successfully squelched the DJC's determination to revise the original strategic plan, which was patently incapable of fulfilment. The Forum has a wide-ranging membership of just over 40, including such diverse elements as the CBI and the Surrey Docks Child Care Project—each with one vote, so that no one can say that it is not democratic. I shall have to return, with some reluctance to the word "democracy", for we heard it uttered countless times; but for the moment it should be said that the forum, unlike some of the other groups, does not reach its decisions in considerable ignorance of the facts.

The forum itself was not a petitioner against the order; we do not know why. Some of its constituent members did petition; some of the other groups petitioned but called no evidence so could not be cross-examined; individuals who were members of groups which did not petition nevertheless gave evidence on behalf of other groups which had petitioned. A number of the groups were formed very recently when the shadow of a UDC loomed. How representative the groups are in reflecting the views of those who live and work in Docklands is hard to establish.

Your Lordships may take all this as a splendid example of local democracy working, but I hope that I may be forgiven for saying that this Member of the Select Committee found it more than somewhat confusing. The overall impression left with me is that the groups are united only by an allergy to change. Is it wrong that their "clout" should be reduced? Is it right that it is better to do nothing than risk making planning mistakes? The Docklands Forum shares this nostalgia for the past. Like so many who dwell in Docklands, they have little recognition that the work practices of the dockers and their predecessors may have contributed to the closure of the docks and their related industries. They are concerned, as are the borough councils, with what they believe to be the best interests of those who presently live in the area. One respects and shares their concern for those living in this wasteland, but it is dreadfully frustrating that they do not see that new enterprises have to be planted and grow in the corner of the world that they love so much.

The fear common to both the borough councils and the community groups is that the establishment of a UDC is a mortal blow to democracy. We referred in our report to a pamphlet called Local Democracy Works. Perhaps, though the inaccuracies in that document do not give one great confidence and neither does the extent of the achievement in Docklands over the past few years bear it out.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in a breezy speech a few Friday mornings ago said:

"Democracy is all right as long as you do not give way to it".—(Official Report, col. 703; 15/5/81).

In fairness, it should be said that his noble friend Lord Mishcon intervened a few moments later to describe the speech as "eccentric"; but, in the context of the future of Docklands, I think that I go along with Lord Houghton. The setting up of a UDC may well erode the capacity of the individual voter or the groups to influence the plans of the UDC in the same way as they have stultified those of the DJC. But the influence of the local people will still be considerable, for the UDC will need to consult the boroughs in accordance with Section 140 of the Act. This is in addition to the ordinary obligations to consult as the planning authority. On the other hand, I think it may well happen that the groups will not participate to the same extent in the making of decisions; I regard this as a price worth paying in order to cause speedier progress to be made.

The scale of the disaster which has overwhelmed this huge area of the capital is so great that I believe that only the new machinery that Parliament approved last autumn can hope to grapple with it. It is not the case that there is no industry left in Docklands. For the past decade there have been three: the making of plans, the discussion of plans and the revision of plans. High expectations have been raised by this activity but pathetically little has happened on the ground. For the sake of the dwindling population still living there, for the sake of London and for the sake of the whole country, I profoundly hope that this House will approve these orders.

My Lords, it may not have gone unnoticed that this is an occasion on which my Front Bench seem not to be in full agreement wth the stand I have taken in supporting the Select Committee's recommendations. That is not to say that I have not a great deal of sympathy with some of the views expressed by my noble friend Lady Birk. I expressed some of those concerns in my own speeches on Second Reading and in Committee. What one must consider today is that we are considering the report of a committee which heard detailed evidence lasting some 46 days. Although the conclusions and recommendations are unanimous and each member of the committee would have arrived at his views for different reasons, nevertheless they were unanimous. It must not be assumed that they were arrived at without misgivings and without serious consideration. The transcripts will give evidence to that. We have before us a report of only 15 pages, a little over 7,000 words. The noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has just said that the transcripts are of 3,406 pages and 2 million words. That is what we members of the committee are basing our conclusions and recommendations on—listening to 2 million words. And, what is more, every committee member posed many questions.

I should like to echo what my collegaues have said in saying what good fortune we had in having the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross, as our chairman. He helped to make our committee (if I may use the word) pleasurable for this period of time. But it was a happy committee and my colleagues, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross, assisted greatly in that.

As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, we did not lightly put on one side the question of taking away democratic control over development control. For myself, I was impressed by the obvious pride of the local authority witnesses in their work for their own councils and for their particular area. The report indicates that the committee value far too highly the work of the local council easily to dismiss their role in this matter. As the evidence unfolded, it seemed clear to me that there were outstanding and urgent problems. First, the speedy availability of land is essential if this work is to proceed; secondly, there was the uncertainty as to whether adequate funds would be available from central Government if there was no urban development corporation. It was not for your Lordships' Select Committee to decide on the question of availa- bility of funds. If they were not available, this would hold up the work.

Third, was the drying up of finances for new public housing because of cuts in the HIP (Housing Investment Programme) of the councils by the Government; and the fact that the councils only had money to carry through rehabilitation of existing housing stocks. Fourth, was the urgency of attracting private investment which is absolutely vital for the work of bringing in new industries and the development of Docklands. It is clear from the report that the committee appreciate the work put in by the DJC in the preparation of the strategic plan. The corporation and chairman-designate said this would be retained as the base plan. I was pleased to note that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, confirmed that in his opening remarks in this debate.

Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.4 and also 8.2 of the report stress that the committee recognises the substantial amount of progress made by the boroughs in dock filling and consolidation, in preparing infrastructure and in carrying out various environmental and community developments. But the evidence before us was clear that the target of new housing by 1982 is well behind, and, although there have been some very helpful new industrial developments, only some 800 new jobs have been created. The fact is that no fewer than 8,500 jobs have been lost during the past five years. I appreciate as well as anyone else that there is a problem of recession, but the LDSP target was for some 10,000 to 12,000 extra jobs by 1982. I may say to my noble friend Lady Birk that we had all the evidence before us in the 2 million words and we also had close consideration and questioning of the operational reports.

The evidence by all witnesses made the committee aware of the obstacles to achieving regeneration. This was more than ever confirmed by the visit to which reference has been made: in particular, the closure of the West India and Millwall Docks as recently as March 1980 showed how this problem had really been accentuated. I also observe on the periphery of the Isle of Dogs the large amount of dereliction on land and property held in private hands. This is another factor to which the new corporation, if it is to be established, will have to pay some attention.

We had before us numerous excellent witnesses. I should like to echo what other noble Lords have said and say how impressed we were by the competence and enthusiasm of the local authorities' officers, chief officers, housing officers, industrial development officers and the planning officers. To me they epitomised the best in public service, which is often criticised by some, including. noble Lords in this House. They were not just treating it as a job but were interested in the people that they served.

I hope that the Secretary of State and the UDC, if established, will recognise this and use the local authorities' staffs to the utmost. To me it is clear that if the corporation acts wisely there will be the fullest co-operation from the borough officers. Evidence before us was that even now there has been close cooperation between the borough officers and the designate-chairman, vice-chairman and chief executive of the UDC. Not only should the expertise and enthusiasm of these officers be used by the UDC but in my view it would be madness to appoint other officers not only because it would duplicate but it would also add unnecessarily to the cost.

It should be noted that the Committee urge in paragraphs 9.9 and 9.10 that officers of the boroughs should be left to supervise some of the developments because of their close acquaintanceship with all the details. This is particularly so for the important development at Hay's Wharf and Chamber's Wharf on the Southwark riverside and the projected large-scale development of the Lysander site in the Surrey Docks.

I draw attention of noble Lords to the section in the report on the extended area on the north Southwark riverside which was not in the Docklands joint area. I draw attention to what the Committee said in paragraph 9.7:

"… were it not for Butler's Wharf and Platform Wharf the Committee would have hesitated to recommend the inclusion of the 'extended area' in the UDA".

The only reason it affected us in this matter is that in the case of Butler's Wharf a substantial sum will be required in connection with conservation because the local development plan insists that conservation be adhered to, and there is lack of money available from the local council to develop housing on Platform Wharf which has been allocated for housing purposes.

Reference has been made to the proposed enterprise zone on the Isle of Dogs. This to me played no part in deciding whether or not to support the UDC. I am satisfied that the Tower Hamlets Council, who have put in a bid for the zone, could have carried this out just as quickly and equally as well as the UDC designate which has also put in for the zone.

I was impressed, as were other noble Lords, by the network of community bodies. This must be almost unparalleled and is certainly unparalleled in my experience of local authority and public work which goes over a long period. Some of them have obviously been established to deal with Dockland problems but others have existed for a very long period and play a very important part in the social life of their areas. I am certain my colleagues on the committee will agree with me that we were impressed by the amount of consultation that there had been by boroughs with these community bodies in the preparation of local plans.

I am very pleased to note the assurance of the chairman designate, Mr. Nigel Broackes, that the UDC, if appointed, will seek to keep a close relationship with these bodies. It is absolutely essential. The Local Government Act provides that when a UDC is established it must prepare a code for consultation with the local authorities. Here I emphasise what my noble friend Lady Birk has said. It is absolutely essential that the code of consultation should be drawn up as quickly as possible. This was emphasised by the Select Committee in paragraph 8.7. It should not wait 12 months. That is something which I believe is essential and this should be proceeded with without delay.

Attention should also be drawn to two paragraphs in the report dealing with the problem of housing. Paragraph 5.8 sets out the very limited amounts of land outside Docklands which the three boroughs have available for house building. The boroughs have been looking to the vacant land in Docklands as opportunities for thinning out congested areas and to give their people opportunity for a better environment. This matter cannot be disregarded and I hope it will not be disregarded by the UDC. This is further explained in paragraph 8.6, and the committee have expressed the view that the UDC ought also to look ahead and have in mind the probable future needs of a borough for land for public housing. I hope that that will be kept in mind because that point is at variance with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in his opening speech.

It is to be hoped that the Secretary of State and the UDC will pay heed to the comments and suggestions on various matters which the committee have set out in their report which are supplementary to the brief recommendations. May I with respect also suggest to the Secretary of State that a great deal will depend upon the other appointments that he makes to complete the membership of the UDC? I have noted with concern that in oral Questions to the Secretary of State in another place on 10th June complaints were voiced about the membership of the Merseyside UDC. That must not happen in relation to the Docklands. The corporation will need commercial and industrial expertise to attract the necessary investment and development; but in my view it will also need persons with knowledge and understanding of environmental considerations, and both are needed to regenerate the area and give the Docklands community an environment for which they have been striving for very many years.

May I in conclusion say that I believe that we all want the Docklands to be regenerated. I am satisfied that it cannot be done in isolation. There must be regard to the effect on the areas of the boroughs outside Docklands—and indeed the effect on East London as a whole. I believe the committee's observations can help on this and the various points which I have mentioned. I should like to conclude by saying that I am in full agreement with the conclusions and recommendations. As I said at the outset, the members of the committee would have arrived at these in various ways. I look forward to the UDC with the boroughs and the GLC co-operating together to build in the Docklands something of which at the end of the day all of us can be proud.

My Lords, I should like to begin my few remarks by paying a tribute to our chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, for his leadership of the Committee and for welding us into a team for this tremendous marathon. It is, I suppose, a matter of some interest that five Peers, with the noble chairman, from quite different sources and with different political convictions, should all have reached the same conclusion on this somewhat controversial subject. I think that was a good deal due to the leadership of the chairman, who saw that we all soaked in equally the facts as they were poured upon us in the months that we sat there; so I thank him.

The debate shows quite clearly—and I hope that all noble Lords will agree with this—that the reason we have all reached the conclusion that a UDC should be set up was the sheer immensity of the task of regenerating London Docklands. Even with the backing of Government finance and influence on a massive scale, the UDC will face a huge challenge. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the partnership and co-operation of the London boroughs is essential and the five points on which she asked for assurances were reasonable ones which will help, I think, to make the kind of relationship we all want to see there.

I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, about the membership of the UDC and the rest to be appointed is also a very important one, and I would hope to see some of the members drawn from that area. It is absolutely vital that there should be partnership. I was very sorry that we were unable to satisfy the wishes of my noble friend Lord Crawford. I sympathise with his disappointment about the Royal Mint site and can only think that had that site still been operational the prospects of patronage perhaps might have produced a different result. As it is, we shall have to let it rest, with our sympathy.

The closure of London Docks—and this is a point which has not yet been made fully—has been one of the heaviest blows our national economy has suffered in the last four years. The rundown of the dock labour force between 1960 and 1981 was about 25,000. But one ran reckon that as many again dock-related jobs were lost and so we are talking of a total job loss in that small area of the order of 50,000, which is gigantic. That really is a major calamity, and it is made worse by the fact that the residue of the closedown is hundreds of acres—thousands, I suppose, when we include the Royal Docks—of derelict docks doing nothing, with massive financial and technical problems involved in bringing these specialist installations into some other use.

It really is a very major problem and, seen in this perspective, regeneration does rest primarily on attracting into the area large numbers of businesses, large and small, which will offer new jobs to the local workforce, or those who remain of it—because all too many of the younger ones have already gone out. Here I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross, that this was the major factor that progressively seeped in upon us. All other developments, however attractive or desirable, must take second place to this. This means that the strategy of redevelopment must give priority, first, to the preparation of new sites for industry and commerce; secondly, to the improvement of local public transport, which is very bad now; and, thirdly, to the provision of attractive sites for private house-building for owner-occupation, plus vigorous marketing of the whole development.

As other speakers have said, the evidence gave us a detailed description of the present situation on the ground and a detailed account of the achievements and plans of the three London boroughs. It quickly became apparent—here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill—that the DJC, having drawn up the LDSP, was really no more than a piece of co-ordinating machinery. The London boroughs proceeded to carry their plans into effect on the ground and I, along with my noble friends, recognise that the boroughs have done much valuable work in the past four or five years in the process of solving some difficult hydraulic and structural problems. I pay tribute to the high calibre of the officials.

They have to their credit some attractive housing schemes and public open spaces to show for it, and the beginnings of some new industrial and commercial developments—for instance, the Billingsgate Fish Market, News International and the new Lysander development, projected but not yet started. These are outstanding examples. The noble Baroness is quite right in saying that there will be more jobs coming through from that but, on the basis of the evidence as we see it now, the record shows, as other noble Lords have said, that in the past five years some 8,500 jobs have been lost and only some 800 have been gained. The fact is that this appalling decline of employment which I have set as the background continues to be a wound which is bleeding and not yet even staunched: much less is the patient on the road to recovery.

My impression was that the boroughs had not given sufficient priority to the preparation of new sites for industry and commerce. In addition they had almost completely neglected private housing schemes to make an attractive proposition to private enterprise to find a home there. One must recognise the fact that a manager of a business contemplating a move has the whole country to choose from and he will not choose the Docklands unless it is made sufficiently attractive to him; and it is the reverse of attractive at present, not only because of the vast areas of derelict docks but also because the area is completely dominated by public authorities and public corporations in ownership of land, houses and employment—about 80 per cent. across the board. This is the reverse of attractive to private enterprise, investing their money and forming new businesses in the area. Here I agree 100 per cent. with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross. These three London Borough Councils have major housing problems. We have heard a lot about them and, my word!, I sympathise with them. It was evident that their first priority was understandably to use the new space they were going to have made available from dock closures for developing new council housing schemes which would help in this respect, and industrial development came second, although they were doing a great deal there too.

I recognise that and sympathise with them over this and I have no doubt that in the context of the closure of London Docks the first priority must be the creation of new jobs. Incidentally, a great deal of new housing will go with that priority as a supporting adjunct. I have been a local government man in the past and recognise the strong feeling in these London borough councils that Government should respect their constitutional independence and allow them to administer the development in their respective territories themselves. I sympathise with them on that. They certainly put up a worthy fight from the word go as soon as the Secretary of State announced that he wished to set up a UDC 21 months ago. But in this case they have on their hands a calamity which goes far beyond the dimensions of any local problem: it is a national calamity of an exceptionally difficult nature and it needs the full strength of our national resources to cure it. It needs to be seen in the perspective of our national economy rather than in the local one. This is what the UDC can offer to give, with the talented and powerful leadership of Mr. Broackes and Mr. Bob Mellish, with tremendous standing in that area and in Parliament, and the large-scale Government finance and vesting orders to get it going.

Even then, I would stress again that the UDC can succeed only if the London borough councils will give it full support and co-operation. They will continue to be responsible for the major part of all the local public services in the area, and of course they have got all the local records. But they have to their credit a great deal of the infrastructure and new development work already done, on which the UDC can build. So the ideal solution for the regeneration of this calamity area is that the UDC and the London borough councils should work in partnership. That is the only way it can be achieved. This gives the best prospect for success and, in that spirit, I hope that this noble House will approve the order.

My Lords, I must offer my regret that my name does not appear on the official list of speakers. That is due to a misunderstanding which was entirely my fault. None the less, I trust that your Lordships will bear with me in the circumstances, and allow me to offer a few observations on this difficult problem. I say that it is a difficult problem, but there is no real ideological difference here. The Labour Party is not a party which is opposed to the development corporation as such. Indeed, historically I think it can be claimed that the Labour Party is the father and mother of the development corporation. So from that point of view, the party is not, in principle, opposed. The real question is whether this particular proposal is one which ought to obtain our support; and I am bound to say that I was deeply impressed by the remarks made from our own Front Bench by my noble friend Lady Birk, who seemed to me to put forward cogent reasons why this proposal is not one which ought to gain the support of the House.

My own background, I must freely admit, like that of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who has just spoken to us so convincingly from his own point of view, is one of local government. I have not myself served on a development corporation, but my wife has served on one in Northampton. I can, therefore, claim some knowledge at secondhand of how a development corporation works. My wife was also, like myself, at one time a member of the GLC and the LCC, and one has the opportunity of comparing the two from close personal experience.

There are some things which, in certain circumstances, a development corporation can do which a local authority cannot do. The ideal situation in which a development corporation can operate, and has operated in the past, is where there is no suitable authority to carry out the functions over the whole area. This has been the case in most of the development corporations which have been set up by the Labour Party. They have been in areas in which the local authorities were overlapping and were not capable of covering an area or did not have powers to carry out the functions.

In this area, however, we have in the Greater London Council a body which regards itself as capable of carrying out this function, given the necessary backing and finance. There has been some reference to the role of the boroughs, but relatively little has been said about the GLC. When I received, as I did, a letter from the Director of Administration and Solicitor to the Greater London Council, Mr. Fitzpatrick, asking for my support to oppose this order, I naturally gave it very careful consideration and I am bound to say that the GLC seems to me to put up a very strong case.

The view that it takes on, for example, the question of the forum, which the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, raised is:

"The council fears that the direct democratic links between Londoners and the organisation of Docklands development developed by means of the Docklands Forum and the Forum's representation on the Docklands Joint Committee will be broken and not replaced, leaving East Londoners without a voice in their future. It is additionally important that these links should be strengthened as the Forum is the only local organisation on which the TUC is directly represented.".

That is one point of view.

Another point made by the Greater London Council in the document which it has been kind enough to send to me is its position as a planning authority. It feels that the new authority will take away from the Greater London Council the planning powers which it at present possesses. In other words, it will render the GLC's decisions nugatory in this area which is normally under its control. It says that after the order has been gone through, and after the subsequent powers have been given to the new authority, the GLC,

"will not even be the final arbiter to decide whether any proposal is in conflict with the statutory structure plan for London. The UDC will not be a plan-making authority and the plan-making authority will have no power to ensure compliance with or achievement of its plan".

The GLC therefore feels that the new authority will, in fact, take away the proper powers and the proper functioning of the Greater London Council in this area.

The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who introduced the order, said that this was a single-minded authority which would not be diverted by the necessity of engaging in all kinds of other activities. To an extent, that is right. It is the strength of a development corporation that it is able to concentrate on its one function. But the GLC—I think, somewhat cogently—points out that it is not necessarily a virtue. It says that:

"It could lead to adverse effects on surrounding areas and centres"—

surrounding areas which would be within the GLC area—

"as the UDC—being necessarily a single-minded authority—will not have regard to the wider effects of any proposal. This is essentially a GLC role."

I think that the GLC has a point there. It might be said that this could be overcome by association, by discussion, by friendly relationships between the two bodies. But there seems to me to be a possibility of inherent conflict here, and I am rather inclined to doubt whether that kind of relationship could be satisfactorily established.

I shall not burden your Lordships with the dozen pages of closely typed arguments with which the GLC has provided me, setting out the financial consequences of what will happen. I shall not burden your Lordships with the other argument which the council puts forward, that if it had been given the financial backing which the new authority is to receive, it would itself have been able to carry out in the past the duties which will be placed upon the new authority. However, I shall give your Lordships the conclusion to which the GLC document comes, and which is quite short. It reads:

"With suitable resource allocations from central government, it is contended that the local authorities and the DJC could have achieved what the new UDC is intended to achieve. Instead, the draft Order proposes the creation of a 'quango' to which Government funds are to be directed. Such a body is not subject to democratic control as normally understood, nor is it geared to the needs of the local community. The GLC regards it as undesirable and not required".

I am very much afraid that my noble friend Lady Birk will not get from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, the proper assurances in reply to the five undertakings to which she asked him to reply. I hope that he paid full attention and has a proper note of those five undertakings, and that she will receive an answer to each one of them. I rather suppose that she will not receive the kind of answer that she wants. If I am right in believing that, then I hope that we shall decide not only to oppose this order but to divide the House against it.

There is one other point which I should like to make. The relationship between a development corporation, a non-elected body, and a local authority, an elected body, might be said to have something in common with the relationship between this House and another place. But in the relationship between these two we have no hesitation in this House in saying that the elected organisation must take priority. We have no hesitation in saying that the elected body is the one whose views must prevail. If I could be satisfied that that would be the relationship between the new development corporation and the GLC, I should be reasonably happy with this arrangement. But as I am satisfied from the order that the fact of the matter is that the unelected body will prevail over the elected body if there is any conflict between them, then for that reason I oppose this order and I hope, as I said, that we shall divide against it.

My Lords, in commenting on all the points which have been made by your Lordships, I cannot resist the temptation to comment first on the observations made by the last speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. He said that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, may not receive the assurances that she wants. She may indeed not receive the assurances that she wants, but assurances she will certainly get from me and an answer to all the points that she made. Whether the noble Baroness will be satisfied with the answers she gets, only she can decide. But I assure noble Lords that the noble Baroness will get answers.

As to the noble Lord's comment about dividing the House, I am not sure whether that was a threat or a promise. I can assure the noble Lord that the prospect does not daunt me too much. There has been expressed in today's debate a real interest in what is being attempted. Everything that has been said has been most constructive. I recognise a welcome in your Lordships' House for these proposals, for which I am most grateful.

May I refer specifically to the points which were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Her concern is not new to us. She expressed it when we discussed this matter last year during the passage of the Local Government Planning and Land Bill. Very few today will agree with her when she talks about the romance of docks and docklands. Romance there may well have been but, as I see it, there is not very much romance in it today. If we can bring back to it something of that romance, rather than it being a negative it will be a positive conclusion to reach.

The noble Baroness said that the UDC was undemocratic, unnecessary and friendless. We can talk about the democratic aspect of the UDC, but neither I nor, indeed, would the committee accept that it is unnecessary. The noble Baroness only had to listen, as she did later on, to realise that the UDC is not friendless—far from it.

My Lords, I did say that it was locally friendless. I knew that it had plenty of friends here.

My Lords, the noble Baroness may well say that it is locally friendless, but she would have to bring a lot of evidence to convince me that there is nobody locally who is for it. However, this clearly cannot be done now. I owe it to the noble Baroness specifically—I shall do it as quickly as I can—to refer to the five points which she made regarding assurances. On consultation before laying further orders, I should point out that a consultative memorandum on the proposed planning régime was issued on 5th February. Comments were received and considered. A meeting was held with the local authorities and the shadow corporation and revised proposals were circulated for comment. The noble Baroness's reference to only seven days being allowed for consultation was somewhat misleading. May I assure the noble Baroness, and the House, that we shall continue to consult all those who are involved about proposed orders.

If I may turn to the point made by the noble Baroness about the need for a code of consultation to be mutually agreed, I can assure the House that the LDDC will do its utmost to reach agreement with the local authorities. I hope everyone agrees that it would be unreasonable to expect me to say more than that.

Thirdly, the LDDC has wide general powers to contribute to the provision of local authority and other services. The Secretary of State will certainly expect the LDDC to frame its programme with the boroughs' needs in mind. Turning to her fourth point, may I assure the noble Baroness that the LDDC will take full advantage of the accumulated experience and expertise of the local authorities. I am concerned that it is a private sector expertise that they will be buying in. On the noble Baroness's fifth point, I can assure your Lordships that both the LDDC and the Government will bear in mind the housing needs, present and future, of the local authorities when considering the vesting orders.

I was grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, for what he had to say. As one might have expected, he put his finger very clearly on the important points. He told us what had impressed him when looking at the matter and stressed, as did all speakers, the importance of working together with the local authorities and the local agencies. We fully recognise how critical this is if there is to be the progress for which we are all looking.

The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is concerned as to whether or not this is in the national interest. He spoke about somebody's reference to this as London's backyard. Well, it is round about a 6,000 acre backyard, which is a pretty sizable backyard. I know that he agreed in the end that this was of major significance. The noble Lord referred to the Secretary of State as being the chosen instrument; he would have preferred Parliament to be the chosen instrument. I should have thought that the Secretary of State of a Government with a parliamentary majority stands in the locus of Parliament's representative. But possibly we are playing with words. One thing which I can tell the noble Lord, and I hope that he will find it interesting and encouraging, is that 120,000 council tenants bought their homes between May 1979 and May 1981, and that at present there are 250,000 applications. This may not be generally known, and it is not without some significance.

I am pleased to see that my noble friend Lord Crawford and Balcarres has been able to stay. I was delighted to hear about the Crown Estates' approach to the development of the Royal Mint site and their sense of the great opportunity which it provides for a superb scheme. I have already referred to the site's significance as a gateway to Docklands. I certainly agree that it is crucial that speed is made in settling a development brief for the site which recognises this, so that progress can he made and the opportunity realised. Tower Hamlets and the LDDC will certainly need to work closely with each other and with the Crown Estates.

On the point of concern about there being two planning authorities, I hope I may assuage the noble Lord's fears by saying that when the planning order is made to effect the transfer of planning powers to the UDC it will provide that there must be consultation between neighbouring planning authorities about any proposed developments which affect both authorities. In practice, I do not think we shall encounter the kind of concern to which my noble friend referred, and which I know concerns him.

I was most encouraged by what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill. Somehow, he caught the flavour of what we are trying to do here. He covered the one point which I want to make, and which I shall cover in a moment, when he spoke about the scale of the problem. That really is the key to it. It is the scale of it, the size of it, that we are talking about. I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he said. I shall look forward to reading carefully in Hansard what he said.

May I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for adopting such an open-minded approach. I know he will not misunderstand me if I say that it was a typically open-minded approach. He and I have debated many matters together in this House, and have always found that to be his attitude. When we debated this matter last year during the course of the Local Government Planning and Land Bill, I realised his concern and his anxieties. It is all the more reason why I should pay tribute to his open-mindedness. It gives me great encouragement in many other directions. I am sure that at the end of the day he will be pleased that his reservations—reservations which I know he still has, and that is not unreasonable—have turned out to be unfounded.

As for my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is always of such great help to me and whom I am always so pleased to see sitting there whenever I am involved in debates in your Lordships' House, I am grateful to him for what he said. He seems to put it together in a few words, but he always gets it right—at least from where I sit. He said that Dock-lands must be made more attractive to prospective private employers. That is right. That is the key to what this is all about.

There is no way in which the public sector, with any amount of money, is going to put in resources which can do the trick here and if the private sector is not brought in, one way or another, it will simply be another extension and there will be improvement and, yes, the local authorities were making progress and, yes, the DJC could show some good schemes and tribute has been paid to them. All these things we readily acknowledge, but there is the question of the private sector coming in—and it can only be a single-minded body given the resources, having the skill, the know-how and the willingness to co-operate: and, my goodness! that has been made clear enough. It is only such a body that can really achieve this. That is why we are so enthusiastic; that is why we are willing to plough in a lot of money in resources. We believe in it.

We do not want to go on so that in 20 or 25 years' time everyone will say "Well, yes, it is better". It will be better, but it will not be where we want to be and it will not be within the timescale that we want. So I have no hesitation in commending these orders to you, in asking you to support them, and when your Lordships have done that I am confident that we shall all see a situation in Docklands that would not come about if we were not to make this move now.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down may I just come back to some of the assurances. Unfortunately, Hansard had my papers when the noble Lord was replying. I, too, would like to say how pleased I was to see the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, present today. On the question of the code of consultation, I asked the Minister if he would give an assurance that it would only be approved if it was mutually agreed, and I was not quite sure how firm that was. Surely it is possible to get it mutually agreed, is it not? I do not think I received a direct answer.

My Lords, what I did was to assure the House that the LDDC will do its utmost to reach agreements with local authorities. No one can say that it will reach agreement on every point, but I know that the importance of so doing is well appreciated by all concerned, because it has been said by nearly every speaker, and I endorse that. If for some reason we cannot work with them, the progress will be slow and unsatisfactory and that we do not want. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.

rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 18th June be approved.

rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 9th April be approved.

rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 9th April be approved.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This amendment was originally moved in another place by the Opposition and it was accepted by the Government. It was, I think, designed to reflect in Clause 4 the wording of Clause 2 following my acceptance during the proceedings in this House of an amendment to insert into Clause 2 the word "substantial". I took the view then, and I still take it, that a corresponding amendment to Clause 4 became unnecessary because the expression "the risk" obviously related back to "the substantial risk" referred to in Clause 2. Since importance appears to have been attached to it I see no harm in it, though precious little good, and therefore I advise the House to accept it. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment.

My Lords, it fell to me to move this very amendment when we debated the matter in this House, and therefore your Lordships will not be surprised when I say that the Commons were well advised to introduce the amendment successfully in another place, and I agree.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2; and perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14 and 16, which of course will be formally moved separately. They all raise the same point. The principal amendment of this group, the new clause, was another amendment moved in another place by the Opposition and not opposed there by the Government.

Perhaps I should begin by pointing out an obvious misprint. The word "made" in the second line of the new clause, as printed on the Paper, is a misprint for the word "rule"—it is the strict liability rule.

The purpose of the clause is to ensure that in England and Wales and Northern Ireland proceedings for a contempt of court under the strict liability rule can only be brought by and with the consent of the Attorney-General or on the motion of a court with power to do so. The effect is that it will no longer be possible for private individuals to move. In view of the anxieties expressed on behalf of the press the Government did not oppose the inclusion of the safeguard.

I am bound to say that my right honourable and learned friend in another place—and I in this place, I think—expressed a constitutional doubt about this particular amendment and I think it was once shared, when he was Attorney-General, but not later, by the noble and learned Lord on the Opposition Front Bench, although I understand that his support for this new clause shows that he has since changed his mind. The reason why I expressed doubts about the constitutional propriety of this is that both in civil cases, and still more in criminal cases, the Attorney-General is one of the parties and therefore to debar the other of the parties, as it might often be, especially in a criminal case, from proceedings for contempt in respect of a contempt which, by inference, must be a contempt which would substantially prejudice his case, is, theore- tically, at any rate, an incompatible duty for the Attorney-General to have to perform. However, the clause has been widely welcomed, and having expressed my misgivings I do not want to press them any further.

The other amendments to which I have been speaking, and to which we shall come in due course, are purely consequential on what I have been saying, but while I am on my feet perhaps I might point out that in Amendment No. 16 your Lordships will see the figure "7" as the numeration on the clause. That will not be the clause now numbered 7 in the print before your Lordships but what it will be if the House accepts the Commons amendments. That slightly alters the numeration of the clauses. My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, what is proposed in the Commons amendment was approved by many speakers in your Lordships' House when we discussed the matter. The view that I came to was that, in the field of contempt of court where the law, despite the clarity now given to it by this Bill, will not be straightforward, what we are concerned with is essentially the public interest in the integrity of the administration of justice and, on the other side, proper facilities for freedom of the press. In these circumstances the intervention of the Attorney-General, who is essentially the protector of the public's interests, seemed to me, after giving further thought to the matter, to be the right course. There are no political implications in my change of mind, but I believe that the public interest is best served by this additional protection against frivolous, oppressive and certainly vexatious preceedings in the field of contempt. Therefore, we on this side of your Lordships' House agree with the Commons in this amendment.

My Lords, I agree with both the Commons' amendment and with what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has just said. A provision which extended the law of contempt to the proceedings of all inferior courts, tribunals and bodies, however described and whenever established, when it was impossible for those advising the noble and learned Lord to identify them, would really have put upon the unfortunate editors an even greater task, and I believe wisdom has been shown by removing the words of Clause 7.

I should like enthusiastically to support this amendment. I was one of those who at Second Reading criticised Clause 7 on the grounds that it quite obviously created an intolerable burden upon the press in seeking to impose the strict liability rule upon the proceedings of the hundreds of tribunals which sit every day in this country. I point out also that conscientious editors who ventured to do their duty would inevitably be baffled by the criterion that a tribunal was to be included in the clause if it was one constituted by law and exercised any part of the judicial part of the state.

Therefore, I welcome very much the removal of a clause which may not have been intended to restrict the press but which undoubtedly would have had that effect. This clause is one of those which was used by The Times in pointing out in a leading article that the House of Commons had done its duty whereas your Lordships' House had failed to do its duty. I believe that was a total misunderstanding of the position because what happened was that on this clause, as on many other clauses, the arguments started in your Lordships' House when the Bill was first introduced. At that stage public opinion had not yet solidified behind the arguments which had been put forward, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack perfectly properly resisted at that stage almost every attempt to amend this Bill. When this Bill went to the other place, the arguments which were used in your Lordships' House were redeployed in the House of Commons, but by that time public opinion had strengthened and there was a clamour in favour of many of the arguments which had started in your Lordships' House. In those circumstances, perfectly properly, the Attorney-General conceded a number of the very important points which had been registered in your Lordships' House. Far from being a criticism of the proceedings in your Lordships' House, I believe that the way in which the amendments have come to be made to this Bill is in fact a very good justification of two Chamber Government, and a very good example of the way in which it should work.

I am very grateful to both noble Lords for what they have said. I am particularly grateful for the words which have fallen from the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who explained the purpose and working of the parliamentary process in a way that I find wholly acceptable. The only coda I would add to that statement is that my right honourable and learned friend did of course ask for my approval first, before he made the concession, and we were perfectly in agreement with one another. I rather doubt whether the press quite realised the situation which they have brought upon themselves—but still, they asked for it and they have got it.

My Lords, we now come to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 and the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson. I have taken advice on this and I am told that the right course, in accordance with the procedure of your Lordships' House, is to call the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, before moving my own Motion, which would be to agree with the House of Commons in Amendments Nos. 4 and 5. I do now so call upon the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson.

rose to move,

My Lords, I rise to speak in support of the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, and the brevity of my remarks is in inverse ratio to the vigour of my feelings in this matter. I am deeply convinced that any publication or exploring of a jury's deliberations would be highly inimical to the public weal. Before we ever reach any question of publication, any questioning of jurors would constitute, in my judgment, indefensible tampering with one of the most valuable institutions of this country.

In the last century, Baron Bramwell, one of our greatest judges, said:

"If juries had to give reasons for their verdict, trial by a jury would not last five years".

In this century Mr. Justice Humphreys, a judge with massive experience of the criminal law and criminal practice, had this to say:

"In this country we consider that a jury is the best possible tribunal yet devised for deciding whether or not a man is guilty. But no one has ever suggested that a jury is composed of persons who are likely, at a moment's notice, to be able to give a logical explanation of how and why they arrived at their verdict,"

Many worthy citizens already quail at the daunting prospect of being called upon to serve as jurors. Imagine how much more troubled they would be were they aware that they could thereafter be interrogated by outsiders as to what had happened in the jury room, who said what, how went the ebb and flow of discussion and debate, what had proved the most crucial and difficult points in their discussions, what had prevented them from reaching a unanimous verdict, if it was a majority verdict who had been in the majority and who in the minority, and why, and whether, in the light of hindsight, they considered their verdict a fair and a just one. The possible questions are endless and all of them are objectionable, if not indeed positively mischievous.

I beg your Lordships not to be deluded into thinking that all evil consequences would be eliminated by the simple device of prohibiting or restricting publication of the interrogator's results, for that would in no way remove the discomfiture of juries on being subjected to such post-trial interrogation. Have no doubt that, publication or no publication, it would soon become widely known that jury service carried with it at least the risk, and certainly in the more florid cases even the certainty, that outside interrogators would be hovering and might indeed prove insatiable in their quest for more and more information.

The prospects of such an outcome could surely have a disastrous inhibitory effect on that free and fearless discussion which is essential for the proper discharge of a jury's task. Would jurors really rest assured by any kind of pressure on publication? In my book it would count for nothing. What lies behind the desire—and this is what puzzles me—to be free to subject jurors to such an indignity? Nothing that I have heard until now convinces me that any public advantage would inure. We live in an age when, under the title of research, many extremely odd things are being said and do happen. For my part, I am root and branch with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lane, the Lord Chief Justice, whose trenchant remarks have been quoted by the noble Lord the mover of this Motion. I said that I would be short and I now conclude; these are my final words. In the firm belief that the secrecy of the jury room should be no less sacrosanct than the secrecy of the confessional and of the ballot box, I beg to support this Motion.

My Lords, I wish briefly also to support this Motion. Since time immemorial jurors have had the duty of reaching their verdict without fear or favour. Back in 1967 we had reason to believe that pressure was being put upon jurors, and that was why majority verdicts were introduced with the support of all parties and even with the somewhat doubtful consent of the Criminal Bar Association. But unless the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, is accepted, it seems to me that pressure upon jurors could—as has been pointed out—be extended, and extended in a variety of ways, some of them most insidious.

Heresy hunters, some of them not always with the best of intentions but trying to undermine our system of justice, will find their opportunities immeasurably increased. Also—and I stand open to correction—my reading of this clause as it is now proposed to be amended by the Commons' amendment comes to this: that there would be nothing to prevent inquiries from being made for the purpose of laying the foundations of an appeal. If that were so—and I do not see anything in the clause as proposed to prevent i—that would indeed be a major departure, and we should require very much more than even the discussion on this amendment before we allowed such a departure to take place.

My only other comment, because I also wish to be brief, is this. With deep respect to the learned Attorney-General and his amendment, which is Amendment No. 4, it seems to me that it causes great difficulty. Its purpose is to retain the effect of the present law, but what is proposed in the clause is in conflict with the present law and, therefore, prima facie, it would seem that the learned Attorney General's amendment would merely create a contradiction. In any event, in view of what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and in view of the obvious doubts held in the profession and I am sure by many outside, with deep respect to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—for whom we have such a high regard and to whom I, personally, owe so much for his friendship and help—I would implore your Lordships to give another place the chance to think again.

My Lords, I too hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will heed that advice and request. I have previously addressed your Lordships on this issue in support of my noble friend Lord Hutchinson. It seems to me that interference with jurors by questioning, however well-intentioned, threatens the confidence that they should have that what goes on in the jury room is secret and that they can approach their task of deciding upon the guilt or innocence of an accused person without fear.

Although I appreciate the view that nothing ought to be sacrosanct, that no institution ought to be sacrosanct—that is, indeed, the prevailing view of almost every institution—nevertheless I think that what is proposed here will have minimal value but a great deal of potential risk and danger to the administration of justice and to the jury system, which has been the outstanding feature of our criminal proceedings over the centuries.

My Lords, I also should like to make a final appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack not to oppose the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, this afternoon. I do so on this simple basis. The Motion that has been moved had had the explicit support not only of the Lord Chief Justice, but of those noble and learned Law Lords who have taken part in the debate, of two former Lord Chancellors, and of every member of the Bar in your Lordships' House who has spoken at any stage in these proceedings.

In another place, where it is often said that there are too many lawyers, if one looks through the record of the proceedings in another place it is noteworthy that every single member of the Bar who had daily experience of the working of the criminal courts today was opposed to the draft clause in the Government's Bill. I think it is right to say that the only vocal support for the Government in fact came from Mr. Christopher Price, and that was really on the basis of the freedom of information lobby, which perhaps was being carried in this case to something of an unnecessary extreme.

Where the whole weight of opinion is in that direction, I ask the noble and learned Lord to recognise that there may be something to be said for the arguments that are being put forward. I am not inviting him today to agree that Lord Hutchinson's amendment should be written into the Bill. What will happen today if the noble and learned Lord concedes that this Motion should be carried in your Lordships' House is no more than that this Motion will then go back to another place for them to reconsider the matter. I would hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack would agree that that final opportunity should be given to another place.

I have not consulted the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, but I venture to suspect that they would agree with me that if another place does reconsider the matter and does decide, on careful reconsideration and bearing in mind everything that has been said today and everything that has been said since it was last considered in another place, that the Government's draft is right, then so far as I am concerned at any rate that will end the matter and I would be prepared, albeit reluctantly, to accept the decision on the reconsideration of another place. But that the other place should have the opportunity at the very last moment of reconsidering this matter seems to me to be something that is clearly desirable. I hope that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will, with his customary good grace, accept that that is the position, and that it might be practical, and the best course to take, to carry Lord Hutchinson's Motion and let the other place reconsider it.

My Lords, to complete the legal circle of a noble and learned law Lord, previous Lord Chancellor, members of the Bar, maybe a humble solicitor may add his voice in support of the amendment. I want to make two points very briefly. The first is this. The average man—so often quoted as the person who does not exist, but your Lordships know what I mean—does not know what his right is at the present moment in regard to the approach to a juror. He is entitled to look at this Bill, which is supposed to have in its midst the whole of the law of contempt. He will find in the clause as recommended by the Commons amendment a right, as he thinks, to approach a juror for any purpose providing he does not intend to publish the results of his interview with the juror. That cannot be right, and it cannot be right merely to rely upon the question of perversion of the course of justice.

My second point, which I make equally briefly, is this. We live unfortunately in an age of violence, and unfortunately there are many cases where jurors have to deal with violent people. The approach of a gentle agent of somebody who is in trouble in regard to matters of violence may be an approach which a juror may think that he can properly deal with by revealing the secrets of the jury room. Let there be no doubt that however gentle the approach, and whatever the purpose of it may be, the juror will know, and the person who makes the approach will know, if this amendment is carried, that there is a danger of contempt of court and that the whole of the conversation therefore ought to be ruled out from the commencement. For those two reasons I beg to support this amendment.

My Lords, if I may, I shall deal with this matter in two quite separate stages. The first is to deal with the arguments which have been presented and the misunderstandings upon which they are based, and the second is to decide what advice I shall give the House. There are times when a professional man finds himself in a minority. That has happened to all of us in our time. I am in a minority today, and my professional honour demands that I should explain myself and say why I think the formidable battery of talent which has been brought to bear upon this Motion is not only mistaken but mistaken for a simple reason.

May I say by way of introduction that no one has a greater regard for the keeping of confidence than I have, and in particular no one respects the absolute security and confidence in which a jury should arrive at its deliberations more than I do. I think I can honestly say that a professional life now—I was called in 1932—in its fiftieth year has done nothing whatever to cast any doubt either on the sincerity of what I say or the reality of what I believe about it.

There is nothing in this clause—and the Attorney-General's amendments in another place numbered here 4 and 5 were designed to make it clear beyond a peradventure—which alters the law as it has been regarded for 700 years. Let me say that at first. The simple fallacy upon which all my noble and learned friends and noble and learned Lords have been proceeding is that this clause, as amended by the Attorney-General—or even without those amendments, because they were designed simply to make the purpose clearer than clear—is in conflict with the existing law, to use the mistaken phrase, if he will forgive me saying so, of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, or enlarges it in any kind of way. I shall go on to explain why that must be so.

For 700 years juries have tried persons accused of indictable crime in this country. By and large it has always been recognised that what goes on in the jury room has been confidential, to use a neutral word. It has never been necessary to bring a prosecution for breaking that confidence throughout the whole of that period until the New Statesman case. It has always been recognised, until the New Statesmen case, that the law was that the courts themselves would decide whether a disclosure would amount to a contempt of court and, if it did, whether it should be punished. That position remains utterly unaltered by this clause. It has been the law for 700 years, and the ball is still firmly in the court of the judiciary. As in all other cases of contempt the courts will decide what a contempt is, and nothing in this clause enlarges the law of contempt in any kind of way, and the Attorney-General's amendments are designed to make that plain beyond a peradventure. That is the first proposition that I make.

May I gently, and, I hope, courteously, correct the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in one remark he made. This Bill does not purport to be, was not intended to be, and is not a codification of the law of contempt. It is in the main a Bill which deals with the Phillimore Report, which was concerned practically solely with the strict liability rule—and the more serious contempts of court are not of course within that rule—and with a number of a rather miscellaneous matters which had arisen in the 10 years since the Phillimore Report had been composed.

I would also correct what my noble friend Lord Renton said when he referred to the possibility of people approaching juries for the purpose of putting them before the Appeal Court. He was for the moment overlooking Boston v. Bagshaw, a case in which I acted professionally, when that very thing was done. A very distinguished member of the Bar, David Hirst, and his solicitor, who was one of the leading members of the profession, not only approached the jury in a civil case but got 12 affidavits out of them as to what had taken place in the jury room and what they attempted to achieve, and attempted to put them before the Court of Appeal. A miserable advocate called Hogg pointed out that it was well established that they could not do it under the existing law and therefore that point is a wholly bad one.

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord would agree that it will not stop it being tried.

It will now, my Lords, because there is the decision of the Court of Appeal in Boston v. Bagshaw, so it is very well indeed established law that the Court of Appeal will not look at any disclosures as to what may or may not have taken place inside the jury room for the purpose of upsetting a verdict given in open court after a proper direction.

My Lords, of course my noble and learned friend is perfectly right about the presentation to the Court of Appeal of any particular matter which might have arisen in the jury room, and that I am not disputing. What I am suggesting is that over-zealous solicitors perhaps, in order to try to find out any kind of reason for appealing, would start making their own inquiries among jurors to get a bit of inspiration, even though they were not entitled to lay those matters before the Court of Appeal.

It would greatly surprise me, my Lords, if under the existing law the judiciary would not punish that, if they came to know of it, as a contempt, but I would regard that as one of the more far-fetched suggestions which could be made; but I think it would be better if I proceeded with my speech, which is technical, without pursuing my noble friend further along that course.

As I say, for 700 years this worked very well. It was, as a matter of fact, very carefully looked into not so long ago by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, who reported as recently as 1968. It consisted then of as distinguished a list of names as those who were cited by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, and this is what they reported:

"After full deliberation, we do not deem it immediately necessary or desirable to make any statutory provision to protect the secrecy of the jury room. We think it is as true today as it was when Lord Justice Banks said it in 1922, that it has been generally accepted by the public as a rule of conduct that what passes in the jury room during the discussion by the jury of what their verdict should be ought to be treated as private and confidential".

That of course is exactly what I have just said to the House to be my understanding of the situation as it has existed from time immemorial. They went on:

"It is our view that criminal legislation in general should not be introduced unless serious mischief has been established or there are other compelling reasons";

and there the matter was left for the time being. At that stage, therefore, Parliament decided that nothing should be done to alter the traditional position, which was that the courts could if they pleased—as they could if this clause were passed in the form in which the House of Commons has already passed it—punish as a contempt anything which was undesirable or contemptuous.

There then followed the New Statesman case. That was a case of a particular kind, and I fully accept that I was not anxious, I confess, when this Bill was in draft to add anything to the Phillimore Report. But my right honourable and learned friend persuaded me, quite rightly in my view, that after the New Statesman case it was correct to say it was no longer true, in the words of the Criminal Law Revision Committee,

"that criminal legislation … should not be introduced unless serious mischief has been established"

because the New Statesman case in my considered judgment did in fact establish a serious mischief which ought to be stopped, and that is the genesis of the clause which we are now discussing. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, it did not destroy the whole structure of what had previously been the law, although it did alter my view of what the law was. It did not destroy or demolish any structure at all, and I quote from the judgment of the then Lord Chief Justice—it was a strong court consisting of the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Park—who said:

"To attack or threaten a juror after the trial in order to obtain revenge or for some other purpose connected with the discharge of his duty as a juror would almost certainly be a contempt of court".

The judgment was really summed up and the nerve of the judgment was contained in this sentence:

"In our judgment therefore, any activity of the kind under consideration in this case which, to use the language of the Attorney-General's statement, tends or will tend to imperil the finality of jury verdicts or to affect adversely the attitude of future jurors and the quality of their deliberations, is capable of being a contempt, but that is not to say that there would of necessity be a contempt because someone had disclosed the secrets of the jury room".

In other words, the view of the then Lord Chief Justice was approximately that which I have been putting forward; that all communications inside the jury room should be confidential and private, as had been said by the Criminal Law Revision Committee, but that there were circumstances in which a disclosure would not necessarily be contemptuous. And of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, frankly admitted, he has gone on to say that all disclosures must be contemptuous and therefore that a criminal offence would be committed.

The noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, said to my considerable surprise that he was unaware of any rule of law which prevented disclosures. In view of what I have said, I should have thought that was at least a surprising statement and quite contrary to my belief about the law. He was good enough to refer to what he claimed to be the authorised statement of the Lord Chief Justice, but at any rate in this respect it is directly contrary to what the Lord Chief Justice has written to me because he said:

"Any weakening of the present rule on the matter is really the quick way to see the end of juries".

In other words, he asked me not to make a dent, to quote his words:

"in the sanctity of deliberations of the jury in criminal cases".

But he recognises that there is a rule, and the rule is left undented by the clause in its original form, and the fact that it remains undented is of course made abundantly plain by the Attorney-General's amendments in another place.

Of course, that means that the ball—if I may use the phrase—is still where it has been for 700 years, in the hands of the judiciary, to describe as a contempt anything that it considers to be inimical to the interests of the administration of justice. The matter is still in the control of the judiciary, which has handled it perfectly satisfactorily for very many centuries, and the present clause makes no difference at all, despite the eminent authority of my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches. The view of the clause, whether amended or unamended, is based on the simple fallacy that it opens a door to something. It opens a door to nothing. What it has done has been to close a door, but to close only that door in accordance with the Criminal Law Revision Committee's report where a serious mischief had occurred. It closes that door. It creates a new statutory offence of contempt, of disclosure for the purposes of publication. It is done without prejudice to the law as it has been successfully administered for very many centuries. I now give way to the noble and learned Lord.

My Lords, I have upstairs, but unfortunately not with me here, the 1968 report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, of which at that time I was the third senior member. We deliberated at a time when the climate was wholly different from that which obtains today. We considered the matter because one or two people had written to us suggesting that the law in relation to the secrecy of the jury's deliberations should be fortified and clarified. We had heard no hullabaloo. Nothing such as we know happens today—in some instances the exploratory investigation is of a most deplorable kind—then existed at all. The conclusion we came to was one which at the time we thought was wise; namely, that there was not really a public mischief existing at that time, so why stir up things? Accordingly, we concluded: leave matters alone.

I cannot possibly assert that had the Criminal Law Revision Committee been sitting today and dealing with the circumstances which have become prevalent, that it would have arrived at a different decision. But I am entitled to say that for my part I would not have been in accordance with the recommendations of the committee. I beg to submit to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that the circumstances in 1968 which were then being considered and which inspired that report are wholly distinctive and dissimilar from those now prevailing.

My Lords, I was of course aware that my noble and learned friend was a most distinguished member of that committee, but I thought it better not to tease him with that fact because I might have incurred the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, who thinks that my most serious remarks, if they are intended to be, and perhaps succeed in being, amusing, are also frivolous, which they are never intended to be. But I shall say to my noble and learned friend, with the greatest possible deference and respect, that he has wholly failed to understand the point that I am making.

At that stage the Criminal Law Revision Committee said two things. It said that no serious mischief had yet arisen, and it said what remains true today: that one ought not to go about creating criminal offences unless serious mischief is to be apprehended or has occurred, and then one should deal with the subject as and when the serious mischief has occurred. That is the justification of Clause 8 in the present Bill. We found a serious mischief. We thought that it ought to be stopped, and we stopped it. But the point which my noble and learned friend really ought to have appreciated by now because I had, I thought, put it fairly clearly, is that in Clause 8 we did not open any doors at all. We closed a door, and that is all that we did. The rest of the law remains totally unaltered, and in order to make it plain that it is totally unaltered the Attorney-General moved the amendment which now appears as Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 on the Marshalled List.

Therefore the courts are free to punish as contempt anything that they could previously have punished as contempt with the addition that they must punish as contempt anything which contravenes Clause 8, because that has become a statutory kind of contempt and is an additional criminal offence. Now the question is whether or not one wants to make all disclosures criminal offences. My judgment throughout has been that this is far too draconian, and I think that the Bar, which has expressed an opinion which is contrary to mine, is mistaken. When I am accused of being out of touch with the Bar, it is of course true. Except as a judge in the Appellate Committee, I have not practised for 10 years, but I think that sometimes they are a little out of touch with the ordinary man in the street, even with the ordinary juror in the street.

I do not want to become anecdotal, otherwise I shall be accused of being frivolous. However, I should like to cull from my professional experience two or three actual cases. Many years ago even civil cases in the county court were tried by juries. One day my father, having won a case before such a jury in the county court in, I think, Whitechapel, was going back on the steam Metropolitan when he saw opposite him a member of the jury. My father was a member of the Bar, and as I hope those who remember him will recognise, he was one of the most honourable members of the Bar that there has ever been, and one of the most distinguished. He saw the gentleman opposite him. Being very pleased with his final speech, and thinking that he was going to receive a bouquet, he said to the member of the jury who was sitting opposite him, "Tell me, what was it which ultimately decided you in favour of my client?"—the client was the plaintiff in a running down case. The man replied without hesitation, "I was not going to see your father's son done down. I am a member of the polytechnic".

Of course that was very naughty of both my father and the juror—I do not know who was the naughtier. But here we are solemnly saying that they all ought to be punished for contempt of court. A new criminal offence is to be created by the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, backed, so he would ask me to believe, by the Lord Chief Justice, and backed by my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches and other persons of almost equal eminence, if such could be found.

Many years ago—I think it was in 1934—I happened to be prosecuting in a case of murder, which was quite famous at the time, and which was known as the Brighton Trunk Murder No. 2. I was led by Mr. James Cassels and the judge was Mr. Justice Branson. The court was the Lewes Assizes, and Sir Norman Birkett (as he then was) made one of his outstanding speeches, and ultimately secured an acquittal. It was the only acquittal on a verdict of murder that I have ever heard booed from the gallery, and so it has remained starkly in my mind. Of course the proceedings of the jury room were utterly secret. Within 20 minutes I had been told by the circuit butler, who was a somewhat loquacious Irishman, exactly what had happened, because they had all repaired to the White Hart hostelry opposite the court and had there discussed exactly what had taken place.

That happened under the law before the whole structure was demolished, as the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson, would ask us to believe; and of course if this amendment were passed in his form, all the persons in the bar of the White Hart, or at any rate a majority of them, would certainly have been guilty of a heinous contempt.

The third case I cite is that which I have already cited to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and that is Boston v. Bagshaw, which was a civil case of libel. There, not only one of the most distinguished leaders of the present bar, an ex-chairman of the Senate, but his solicitor, who was equally distinguished, obtained 12 affidavits from members of the jury as to what had gone on in the jury room and asked the Court of Appeal to look at them for the purposes of deciding the merits of the appeal. The Court of Appeal, as I have already recounted, refused to look at them on authority, which was quite plain and unequivocal, which I ventured to put before them professionally. But if the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Hutchinson of Lullington, had been carried, the ex-chairman of the Senate and his solicitor would have been behind prison bars, because this would have been an open acknowledgement of a contempt.

I can only say this. I have taken a good deal of stick on this Bill, which I regard as a liberalising measure; and the general picture which has been painted about me in the press is that of a harsh and unrelenting Lord Chancellor determined to restrict the liberties of the press and the liberties of the subject. But I venture to say that Lord Hutchinson's little finger is thicker than my thighs, because he is now saying that all this careless talk, which for 700 years has gone on without particular complaint, is going to undermine the whole jury system unless it is abolished overnight by his Motion, because all these disclosures would be contempt of court.

I recognise, of course, that under the Bill as drafted, and therefore under the noble Lord's amendment, the Attorney-General's consent is necessary to back prosecutions; but I am not myself going voluntarily to be a party to introducing a new criminal offence which is to my mind thoroughly bad because it is too draconian and contrary to the advice of the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the whole philosophy of their report, and not just their particular recommendation on this subject. I am not going to be a party to having an anti-liberal device introduced in this way without telling noble Lords exactly what I think they are doing. As I said at the beginning of my immoderately long speech, it sometimes falls to a man who belongs to an honourable profession to differ from his fellows. This is one of those occasions. If I am beaten on a Division, I shall take it, I hope, like a gentleman. There are no politics in this at all; but the House must at least be aware of what it is doing, and I hope I have made it aware of what it is doing pace the Lord Chief Justice, pace the criminal law bar, pace my noble and learned friend on the Cross-Benches and pace Lord Mishcon and Lord Renton. I think they are going too far in an anti-liberal direction. If the House wants to do that, I shall not complain that I have been beaten, but at least my honour will remain intact.

My Lords, perhaps I might, with all the modesty that I can command, reply quickly to one or two of the things which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said. He has spoken of stick, and if I add a little more stick I know I will be forgiven. I say it with no disrespect, but the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor seemed to me to be somewhat like a stag at bay at this stage of the debate. Can it really be that everybody who is concerned with this question in the law is out of step? Can it he that everybody—the Lord Chief Justice of England; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies; the whole of the Criminal Bar Association; the bar itself; the solicitors; and all those who took part in the debate in another place—is out of step, there being not one single speaker in this Chamber to support the noble and learned Lord? Can it be that he alone speaks on this matter with the correct truth and authority, and that everybody else is wrong?

May I just deal with three points quickly? The point is made that for 700 years matters have gone on; the law has dealt with them, and the whole view behind this amendment is based on a fallacy. This, if I may say so, is a complete misconception of the reason for this amendment. What has happened, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, is that for 700 years no case was brought in relation to this matter. But when the New Statesman case was brought it then appeared for the first time that there was no real sanction of the law which could deal with the kind of disclosures to which we have been referring.

It was not a question that the law dealt with them, and dealt with them for 700 years. The position was that everyone believed that there was a legal sanction, and it was when the New Statesman case was decided that it became clear that there was no such sanction except in the special circumstances that we have heard about. Anyone who reads the judgment in the New Statesman case will find that it is very weak indeed on suggesting that anything would be a contempt unless it clearly interfered with justice or clearly imperilled the finality of a verdict, but that otherwise these sort of questions would not be covered at all.

All that the Criminal Law Revision Committee did, as we have heard from the noble and learned Lord who was a member of it, was to show its wisdom in 1968 not to legislate, and not to legislate has now been done, because they knew perfectly well that if there was legislation then it would have to cover the whole area of disclosure and not simply one part of it. So they showed their wisdom, which has not been shown, if I may say so, by the legislation which is proposed in this clause. That was the position of the Criminal Law Revision Committee.

The Lord Chief Justice has apparently written a letter to say that he did not want the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to make a dent in the situation. If that is all that he asked for, then why was it that he described as an incredible idea and as anathema the situation when persons might be able to approach jurymen after a verdict and simply ask them what went on.?

It has been said that practising lawyers are out of touch with jurymen and with the courts. I can only say that possibly in the days of the steam Metropolitan, in the days of circuit butlers, in the days of Mr. Justice Cassels (to whom I was a marshal 41 years ago), things were very different. Now, there are people called investigative journalists; and juries are now no more prepared to sit back in fear of what a judge says to them and of what they are told they can do and what they cannot do. They are far more educated, they are far more independent; and I am afraid to say that possibly those of us who every day of the week spend our time either with persons who are charged with offences or in the company of juries and jurymen, are perhaps (I would suggest with the greatest possible modesty) more in touch with what in fact they do and think and say. In view of the remarkable amount of support that this Motion has received in this Chamber, and the remarkable quality of it, I feel that I am bound to press this matter to a Division.

My Lords, having regard to the result of the Division, I am advised (I think I am right in saying) that I do not move the Motions on Commons Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their amendment which is numbered 6 on our Order Paper. We debated this amendment when this Bill was in this House. When the Bill was moved again there was a good deal of support for it and the Government accordingly accepted it. I explained in this House that I do not think it alters the law but, since the House of Commons seems to wish to put it in, I do not think any particular harm is done by inserting it. For that reason I advise the House to accept it.

My Lords, I think it is unnecessary to detain the House by any comment save to say that one has noted with respect what the noble and learned Lord has said and that one remembers the discussion that took place previously in this House.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. This was a Government amendment in another place. It ensures that the only penalty for juveniles who commit contempt in the face of a magistrates' court is a fine. Magistrates' courts, including juvenile courts, have at present no powers to punish for contempt, and the Government take the view that a power to fine is adequate to deal with children aged 16 and under who misbehave in court.

My Lords, for the purposes of clarification I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate could explain to us the reason why it is thought unsuitable that a youngster under the age of 17, when behaving in a manner which is contemptuous of the court, should have an attendance centre order made against him but must have a fine? One would have thought that the attendance centre order might have taught him some respect for the court, whereas a fine is so often paid by a parent and may not have the same salutary effect.

My Lords, the matter is one of judgment. The Government feel that the likelihood is that a young person who commits an offence in court under this clause will possibly be distressed and bewildered. The best method of dealing with that, it seems to us, is by an immediate penalty such as the imposition of a fine. An attendance centre order, on the other hand, is by its nature a delayed and protracted penalty which involves arranging for the juvenile to attend the centre for a few hours on alternate Saturdays over a period of up to six months. It seemed to the Government that it was not wise to make that an appropriate punishment for contempt of court.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 9, 20, 21 and 22. This group of amendments imposes a general limit on the powers of inferior courts to punish for contempt, the limit being one month's imprisonment or a £500 fine or both. Without these amendments Clause 13 imposes only a limit of 2 years' imprisonment.

Most inferior courts and tribunals do not possess power to punish contempts; at common law only courts of record possess that power and inferior courts of record—and most of them have now been abolished—can only, in the absence of special statutory powers, punish contempts committed in court. They cannot, as can superior courts, deal with contempts committed elsewhere, for example threats made against witnesses or prejudicial publications. It is therefore inappropriate for them to have such extensive powers as Clause 13(1) would give them. The first of this group of amendments therefore restricts the two-year maximum to superior courts and imposes a one-month maximum for inferior courts—in line with Clause 11(2) and the analogous provision for county courts.

The second of this group of amendments inserts a new subsection into Clause 13, imposing a £500 maximum on fines. Again this is in line with the new maximum for magistrates' courts under Clause 11(2) and Section 157 of the County Courts Act, as it will be amended by Schedule 5, paragraph 4, of the Bill. The remaining three amendments simply do the same thing for the Northern Ireland equivalent of Clause 13, which is in Schedule 4.

My Lords, I am sure that the House is indebted to the noble and learned Lord for such a clear explanation. One would feel that it was right in these circumstances for the Commons amendment to be agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10; and I shall take with this amendment Amendments Nos. 18, 19 and 23 and speak to these together. The purpose of these Government amendments is to increase the maximum fines available under Sections 19(1) and (2) and Section 23 of the Coroners Act 1887 which provide penalties for failure to appear or to serve as a juror at an inquest, for failure to appear or to answer a question as a witness, and for failure, as a medical practitioner, to obey a summons of a coroner in pursuance of the Act. The present maximum penalty available under these provisions is £5. This limit was set almost 100 years ago and is now so derisory in comparison with the value of a day's work to many people that witnesses have been known to proffer their £5 voluntarily rather than have to spend a day in court.

The maximum penalty of £200, substituted by these amendments, is in line with the present-day equivalent of the maximum fine for a similar offence under Section 20 of the Juries Act 1974. These amendments, therefore, bring coroners' juries more closely into line with ordinary juries.

The last amendment of the group (No. 23) makes a similar change for defaulting witnesses and jurors at coroners' courts in Northern Ireland—the present limit there is £10—and also substitutes £500 for the present statutory limit of £25 for disrupting proceedings. This last change is in line with those we have just discussed in relation to the last group of amendments.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. This new clause was a Government amendment in another place to replace the existing Clause 15 with a more flexible provision allowing for alternative methods of enforcing fines for contempt of court imposed by superior courts. Clause 15 in the Bill as printed enables fines for contempt imposed by superior courts to be enforced through magistrates' courts by means of the machinery originally laid down in the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and now provided by the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 for the enforcement of fines imposed by the Crown Court. The new clause provides in the alternative for enforcement by way of High Court execution which might be more appropriate and effective in certain cases.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. This is consequential upon one to which I have already spoken. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. This is also consequential. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. This is equally consequential on Amendment No. 2.

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. This was a Government amendment in another place. It simply alters the commencement provisions of the Bill so as to enable criminal legal aid for contempt in the face of the court to be extended to different courts at different times. In the Bill as printed the clause allows only for an extension to all courts on a common date. I beg to move.

My Lords, I rise in some trepidation, just to point out a fact that I feel sure would have been picked up by the clerks at a later date; namely, the capitalisation of the words "Different Days". I felt that it might be useful just to point this out to your Lordships, as I feel sure it was not intended.

My Lords, I must confess that I have doubts about this. We have enough trouble caused to the profession by having a great many different appointed day orders under various statues. If we are going to have this added complication—and I am not aware of a precedent for it—and if we are going to have different days for different courts, then I can see that what is often now confusion will be confusion worse confounded. If the circumstances were slightly different from what they are at this moment, and if this were an even more important matter, I would be urging that we do not agree with the Commons in this amendment but, as things as are, I suppose we must accept what we are asked to agree to.

My Lords, I think there is perhaps a good reason for accepting this amendment, which is really technical and drafting. I could explain it probably less well and at greater length than my noble and learned friend, but I do not think we need take much time about it. As for my noble friend Lord Morris, I think the point he has mentioned is one of those things in the grey area which the printer can deal with.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. This is consequential, and I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17. In connection with the provision in the Bill whereby strict liability in relation to criminal proceedings starts when an arrest warrant is issued, it has often been said that this would cause difficulty in the type of case where a wanted man eludes capture, and perhaps even disappears, for a long period. It was a point referred to by the Phillimore Committee as a drawback to that starting point.

The Government agreed in another place that this difficulty should be met if possible and accordingly my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General moved this amendment. It is a new paragraph for Schedule 1 and imposes a time limit for the operation of the rule of twelve months from the date of issue of the arrest warrant. If the man is not arrested in that time, strict liability ceases, but would start again if he were subsequently arrested. The 12-month period has been chosen because that is the time after which the likelihood of an early arrest significantly diminishes.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18. That is consequential upon No. 10. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 19 to 23 en bloc, as being consequential to amendments we have already spoken to.

moved Amendment No. 1

Before Clause 1, insert the following new clause:

My Lords, I am very happy to support the amendment of my noble friend, and I should like to congratulate him on his first speech dealing with forestry. He is uniquely qualified to speak on this subject since he is the most recent ex-chairman of the Forestry Commission. His previous concern and experience had been in agriculture, something which tended at one time to upset certain foresters. However, my noble friend showed by his personal attitude and work that sensible integration was not only possible but desirable and that there was too much fear of clashes between two sets of opinions.

My noble friend was a little unfair to the Minister. The Minister has accepted two amendments. One of these was not asked for by anybody on this side. However, it was supposed to soothe us. It was what I call a pious declaration regarding how Ministers are to treat forestry. It was always there for the Forestry Commission but now it applies to Forestry Ministers. It is on page 2 of the "Hymn Sheet". Clause 4 says:

"After Section 8 of the Forestry Act 1967 there shall be inserted—

8A. In performing their functions under this Act the Ministers shall have regard to the national interest in main- taining and expanding the forestry resources of Great Britain.".

It does not really mean anything and it does not take us any further forward. The Government are determined to sell, and sell they will. After years of generating the consciousness that now we have a Government in which everyone can have confidence, today the pound has reached a new low of 1·91 dollars to the pound. Is it not time that the Government hesitated about some of their policies, in particular this one?

The noble Earl has shown practical common sense. He cited instances of new expectations, of bargains in the tenant fanning field. Of course the actual fact is that there are certain limitations on the Government's activities—and even on the Forestry Commission's activities—with respect to tenant farmers. One of the things that I was most applauded for by farmers when I was Secretary of State was giving to the Scottish farmers what the English did not get for some time, and that was a measure of security of tenure to tenant farmers, it having been taken away from them some years before. Of course that is what council tenants did not have until the recent Act. It may well be that in respect of that that security will need to be bought out.

I do not think we are going to get very much change out of this. The Government are determined that they are going to sell trees, they are going to sell land, they are going to sell everything else they can get their hands on, and none of it seems to do them any good at all. The noble Lord was right in saying that, so far as the countryside is concerned, the interests of the private foresters are the same as the interests of the Forestry Commission. The views of the private foresters to whom I have spoken—and this was evinced in the criticisms and the efforts of this House to get some changes in the Bill—are that a healthy, vibrant, progressive Forestry Commission is necessary from the point of view of the success even of private forestry.

We are now in a very different ball game when we are getting to the question of speculation in forestry. I think what the noble Lord said is right, that it is foolish to go so far as to sell the plantable reserves. One of the amendments that we won was that the compulsory purchase under the Act shall not be exercisable in relation to land held inalienably by the National Trust or the National Trust for Scotland. Actually, the National Trust for Scotland was never worried about that and I do not think anyone should have been worried about the exercise of compulsory purchase by the Forestry Commission because, so far as I know, they never used it at all, whether on land that was alienable or inalienable. So once again that was a little hit of comfort that did not cost the Government anything at all.

So what we are left with is what we started off with. Of course there was the difficulty that my noble friend got into with regard to drafting—and I am sorry that he spoke to lawyers about this; he should have spoken to some of the ordinary people who have been trying to deal with the devious nature of the draftsmen. They have been very clever with this one. If you start with the business that you wipe out the whole existing clause then you are left with the fact that the Minister may dispose for any purpose of land acquired by him under this section—and there is no restriction. Let us not plead promises, let us not plead letters that were written; that is what the Act says:

"The Minister may dispose for any purpose of land acquired by him under this section."

I know that my noble friend is proud of the work that was done, not only when he was chairman of the Forestry Commission but during the whole lifetime of the Forestry Commission. It was not Socialists who created the Forestry Commission, although it is one of the finest pieces of socialism that there is in the country. Hitherto it has had the support of all parts of both Houses, and for a Minister to take that power to dispose—they have gone sale mad. I am sorry that my noble friend was not here when we started our proceedings on this Bill and indeed that he had not made his maiden speech before the Report stage, so that he could have helped us. But I can assure him that if he had I do not think he would have tabled another amendment; he would have been pretty well heartbroken at the stubbornness of the Government and the failure of the Government to be at all flexible in respect of what words go into the Bill. It is nonsense to sell growing trees.

With regard to the definition of land, I remember as a young Member of Parliament, about 35 years ago, being amazed at the definition of land: land includes water. So if the noble Lord had just worded it in a different way he could have got this into order. If it is logical and sensible to sell land and to exclude what is underneath the land—namely, the mineral rights, which are easily separated—then one could equally sell the land without selling the trees upon it.

I am sorry that my noble friend has run into these drafting difficulties. The common sense of his proposal is right, but I am afraid he will discover that the Minister will give us no reassurance in respect of accepting an amendment on the main aspect of this Bill. They are just determined to sell. We have a Woolworth Government: crack-down prices; everything must be sold. I am sorry about it. I will support my noble friend but I will mourn with him.

My Lords, I rise to support my noble kinsman, not because he is a kinsman but because he has brought a fresh proposal and a fresh look to the efforts which have been made in all parts of this House to make the Government think again on this Bill. He was quite right when he said that the opposition was practically universal and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, said, those of us who have considered the Bill from the beginning are full of despair about making the Government see the impracticality of expecting the Forestry Commission to continue its splendid work—and it is said by all to be splendid work—if the ground is constantly to be cut from under them as they go about their work. Indeed, the noble Lord gave several examples of exactly the sort of thing that people from all parts of this House who know about forestry have been citing during the passage of the Bill through Parliament.

I believe that the Government should think again about this, because there are practical examples. The best market in farming land just now is in fact the market sought by the pension funds and by the cities, who are buying land to lease back to farmers. I personally have a great belief in the landlord and tenant system and I welcome this if the pension funds become—and remain—good landlords, which I think they well may. There is a market and they are not looking for a commercial operation; they are looking for a return on their money. I believe that is where the Government might get money and, if they want money in order to continue growing trees for the nation, to make up for the fantastic shortage of timber that we have, this is one way to do it. They would be well advised to look at this and to say, for once, "We will look at this and we do regard this as perhaps the most practical way of raising money to continue the good work in forestry".

Like the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I sit down to hear the Minister without any great hope that we shall get anything but a repetition of somewhat stale arguments. The noble Earl may think that ours are stale, but let me assure him that his are equally stale to us. However, I am a perennial optimist and I hope to hear something good from him.

My Lords, I venture to support what has been said by my noble friends. I am not competent to comment on the drafting of the amendments; I want only to express a sense of grave concern at the thought of sales of forest land by the Forestry Commission and the diminution of the area of our country under forests. I remember the creation of the Forestry Commission—not by a Socialist Government—as a socialist reform of the utmost necessity and benefit to the nation as a whole. I have admired without limit the work of the Forestry Commission, although I have not always admired some of its results. I have known the work of the Commission in Cumbria better than elsewhere. When the valley of Emerdale was planted with conifers, I was one of those who thought that perhaps the lovely landscape of that valley, where there is the great pillar of rock which I have so often climbed, was not improved—but beyond all doubt the increase in forest land in Cumbria was of great benefit to that area and to the nation as a whole. I should like to express the hope that the warning will be borne in mind that if we continue cutting forests at the rate at which we are cutting them today, we may find that in 40 years' time we are almost without any forest land at all. I hope most ardently that the Government will listen to the protests which have been made and will change their policies.

My Lords, I was interested and indeed anxious when the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, rose to his feet, to hear whether he would in fact say anything about this Bill which one could describe as being "fresh". Indeed, the noble Lord would have had to be very ingenious to do so, because the attitude of the Government has now been made plain from the floor of both Houses of Parliament on no less than eight occasions—this being the eighth. I discount one occasion when the same statement was repeated in each House, and I also discount the occasions when the Government's policies were made plain in Committee in the other place.

There is very little to say that is fresh and I assume that what the noble Lord did say is what he would have said had he been a Member of your Lordships' House in December last and throughout the ensuing months. I do, of course, pay attention to what is said by the noble Lord with the greatest respect, because, if I may say so, he has had a most distinguished career, both in agriculture and in Government—and latterly, but not least, as chairman of the Forestry Commission. It would be idle and indeed impertinent for any Minister, even if he himself had the odd tree about his person, if I may misquote, to seek to denigrate anything said by the noble Lord opposite.

I am not going to restate all the principles which lie behind this Bill. The Government have determined that there is no reason why the Forestry Commission should continue to remain so dependent upon public funds as it has been in the past when the commission now has funds of its own, so to speak, which are worth well over £1 billion. One of the purposes of this Bill is to reduce the amount of grant in aid and therefore to reduce the strain on the taxpayer. I believe most of your Lordships would agree that that was an entirely laudable aim. The second aim is to raise money and to recycle that money so that we can expand forestry in this country, both in the private sector and in the public sector, at a time when we all agree that it is very right, proper and desirable that forestry in this country should be expanded.

However, one has to take into account many arguments—not least the ecological and conservationist argument, that we must have a wise and well-thought-out programme of integrated land use. Having said that, I do not believe there is anything between the parties or between the different sides of the House as to the desirability of an expansion of forestry.

I really do not need to remind noble Lords of the various safeguards which have been erected, if I may use that term, in relation to this Bill. I know that those safeguards are not statutory, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, makes a pained face at anything that is not statutory, believing that it is not of any use. But anyone who has followed the debates in your Lordships' House will also have followed the various undertakings which have been given and which have been placed in the Library—for instance, in respect of the policy by which the Forestry Commission is going to carry out sales. We had some argument about the precise role, legal definition, character and complexion of the commission. I was called to task by another "double-barrelled" noble Lord for describing the commission as a "Government department". I see that the noble Lord in question—luckily or otherwise—is not in his place tonight, but nevertheless the fact remains that the Forestry Commission will choose the land which is to be sold. It will put the land on the market in a way which I think will commend itself both to the Accounting Officer and to the Public Accounts Committee.

The noble Lord said that there was really no welcome for this measure and, of course, a lot of people who love forestry and the forestry industry and who work in the forestry industry expressed—especially at the earlier stages when the matter was announced—their anxiety. None more so than my noble friend Lord Dulverton, who has contributed so much to our debates in a constructive way. As a result of the anxiety which my noble friend so constructively expressed, I tabled the amendment following his which is now Clause 4 of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, gave it scant welcome, but then, one does not expect much more from him. My noble friend Lord Dulverton and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie (who says that he recollects all the debates because he has read them in the Official Report), will find in column 204 of the Official Report for 9th June the welcome which my noble friend gave to this provision, which puts in statutory form the duty of forestry Ministers in this respect. I cannot quote what he said but he made it quite plain that he feels grateful and to some extent better in his mind as a result of that amendment passing into the Bill. I believe that is a very fair way of summing up what was said by my noble friend.

The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked who wanted to buy these trees and what sort of investment were they going to make. Perhaps I might quote from SWOAC News (which is the bulletin of the Scottish Woodland Owners' Association Commercial Limited):

"The demand for stocked conifer plantations, which comes mainly from the pension funds, continues. Particular interest has been shown in plots of 100 hectares or more in favourable and productive locations. Recent sales have seen several unsatisfied offerers, proving that despite the depressed state of the timber market some fund managers are still taking a positive view of the longer term nature of forestry".

My Lords, I did not say there was not a market. I said it was a bad thing to sell. I said that to get that market you have to sell cheap.

My Lords, I do not think they will sell cheap. I think they will sell by tender to the highest bidder and if the bid does not come up to the expectation in the good old Scottish manner they will not sell. I take issue with the noble Lord about that. If he thinks these woods are going to be sold off cheap to raise the odd bob or two—and the noble Lord, Lord Ross, I am sure knows much more about Woolworth's than I do—he is wrong; it is not going to happen that way.

The next point that the noble Lord raised was a legal point. He said in effect, does the sale of land by forestry Ministers include the trees on it? We come now to the point of his amendment, or part of the point. The answer is, it does; at common law trees growing on land pass with the land when sold unless the trees which are growing on the land are specifically reserved; it would have to be part of the conveyance, part of the bargain which is struck.

So I come to the amendment. If I say it is a wrecking amendment I hope I shall not be taken to be offensive; that is what it is and that is what it is meant to be. It was a jolly ingenious one, if I may say so, because there are very few wrecking amendments which could be devised which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, or the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, had not tabled at some stage of this Bill and which are within the rules of discussion on Third Reading. So I congratulate the noble Lord. Nevertheless, it is a wrecking amendment, because the effect of it would be that the Forestry Commission could only in effect sell their land. Therefore, there would be very few customers and the entire point of the Bill would be lost. This may well be something which would no doubt please the noble Lord, and indeed noble Lords on that side of the House. The fact remains that it would be more than a constraint on the freedom of action of the commission as we envisage it. If we are going to reduce the call on public funds that the commission make every year, if we are going to expand its forestry enterprise activities without being dependent on public money, we need to have these sales, and certainly they cannot take place if the Forestry Commission are restricted in the way suggested by the amendment.

I am quite sure that in fact, so far as the silvicultural point of view is concerned, the land will be properly managed and the trees will be properly looked after. The private sector certainly has the skill and expertise, throughout the United Kingdom, particularly in Scotland, to manage these woodlands properly, and I have absolutely no doubt that the pensions funds or whoever, who invest their (dare I say?) trade union money on occasion in these woodlands, will see to it that they are properly managed in order that they get the proper return on the money within their pensions funds.

I said, in what should have been a private place, in conversation with the noble Lord, that his amendment was defective; and so it is, because it would stop the Forestry Commission from purchases as well as disposals. It would prevent the Forestry Commission from buying any land which had trees on it, and it would make it impossible, for instance, to have exchanges of land or plantations in the interests of rational land management. It would also make the commissioners unable to rationalise their holdings by selling off small uneconomic plantations, which they can do under the present 1967 Act. So to that extent the noble Lord's amendment would put the clock back and would be even more restrictive than the present law allows. For all those reasons I cannot commend that amendment to the House.

The noble Lord then went on to his second amendment. I think I have dealt with all the points he raised on the first one. There was the matter of the selling of farms. The Forestry Commission—and I am sure that policy has not changed since he was the chairman of the commissioners—in fact is anxious to sell surplus assets where there is land which is unlikely to be available for planting. This of course includes land which is too good for planting but which has, as I think the noble Lord related, passed into the hands of the Forestry Commission from time to time. Where you have a tenanted farm—I am the very last person to decry the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948; the noble Lord, Lord Ross, may be surprised, but I assure him that is the case; I would be the very last person to try to overthrow that Act.

But, my Lords, it was overthrown by a Tory Government and we had to take action later in the 1960s.

My Lords, I do not think my tenants would agree with the noble Lord, and they would, I hazard, know a bit more about it than he does. Nevertheless, where such a sale as this takes place the obvious purchaser is the tenant. He must be. It is equally obvious that he is not going to give a vacant possession price, because he has security of tenure. I am sure the noble Lord accepts that. So if there is a sale under these circumstances by the Forestry Commission quite obviously it will not seek and it will not obtain the vacant possession price. There has to be a discount on the full vacant possession market price; that is what would happen, and that is what does happen.

I come shortly to the noble Lord's second amendment. If the noble Lord reflects, under the Bill as it stands there is every discretion to Ministers, and therefore to the commission, in the appropriate instance to have not a straight sale but a sale and leaseback. We have in your Lordships' House debated at very considerable length the sort of instances where it would be appropriate, and indeed very desirable, that there should be a sale and leaseback rather than sale. Therefore, the noble Lord's amendment, which is what I might call permissive in the way it is drafted, is unnecessary if it is intended to bestow upon the Ministers any power, because, as I say, they have it already. It would in fact make powers of disposal quite inflexible if the intention behind the amendment is that all sales should be by way of sale and leaseback, because outright sales would be ruled out. That would prevent disposal of any surplus assets, and that would include such minor assets, if I may so describe them, as cottages or agricultural land or land required for purposes such as road widening and so forth. All of these have taken place in the past and all should continue in the future. But if the amendment is desired to impose a mandatory qualification on the right to sell—I think that is what the noble Lord did mean—it does not say so, because it says "Provided he can recover the leaseback". That is why in this private place I did venture to suggest that the drafting was a little bit deficient.

The commissioners will be responsible for selecting areas for disposal, and for deciding, in the proper instance, the method of disposal would be by sale and leaseback. This is all in the guidelines we have issued and which are now in the Library for all to read.

So I do not—and I hope that I am not being offensive—consider that the noble Lord's amendment really contributes very much to the Bill, even if it were acceptable. However, I hope that, on reflection, the noble Lord will perhaps see the safeguards which we have—and I admit immediately that they are not statutory—as it were laid down through the Forestry Commission, which will be responsible for these sales, and will, perhaps, agree with me that his amendment is not entirely necessary and withdraw it.

My Lords, first and foremost, I should like to apologise for saying that the noble Earl had not accepted some amendments. Admittedly, as my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock said, there were some very small amendments and they did not make much difference to the Bill. They were made in another place and I did say that I had not read the Committee stage there.

I do not think that I need to apologise for mentioning that we had a conversation and that the noble Earl told me that my drafting was not too good. I readily admit that my drafting was not good. However, I should like to make the point to him that I certainly did not raise this matter as a wrecking amendment. The first amendment was simply to clarify what the Commission could sell and what "land" meant. I shall send the noble Earl the quotation which I have from a legal tome in the Library. I think he will agree that he would not be on very sure ground if somebody were to try and stop him selling land with trees on it, but that is beside the point.

My sole reason for raising this matter was to give the noble Earl a let-out from selling trees which—and I know that he read out from a forestry document—I think will not be sold at their proper value in this year and age, especially the younger plantations. I drew an analogy with farming. That was all I wanted to do. The Government want to raise this money and that is well and good. I was giving them a way of raising it without selling the trees, which I think will harm a lot of things in the commission, including a lot of morale in the field.

I am not clever enough to produce wrecking amendments. I really quite object to the noble Earl saying that I was using this as a wrecking amendment. I put down the first amendment because I was not sure what the particular phrase meant. That is all that I want to say. In spite of the very disappointing reply which the noble Earl has given—as my noble friend Lord Ross suggested it would be—I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 1.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 8, after ("(2)") insert ("Subject to subsection (2A) below,").

My Lords, in welcoming this amendment, which I most certainly do, I want to make it quite clear that my acceptance of it and support for it is whole-hearted and unconditional. In saying that, I know that I am reflecting the feelings of the authorities in the Forest of Dean. I make that point because I want to go on to say that there are still some small residual doubts in some of our minds about the precise statutory definition of the Forest of Dean. I wonder whether it is possible for the noble Earl to say a little more about that because it might bring some comfort and tranquillity to some of the more suspicious and perhaps more legal minds in the Forest.

The point is that there are some peripheral plantations which were vested in the Forestry Commissioners by the Orders of 1924 and 1926, and which suffer exactly the same lack of any legal rights of common as the Forest of Dean proper. We are not entirely sure whether those are covered by the amendment or not. We would welcome an assurance, if such can be given, that at any rate the Forestry Ministers will look upon these, what I have called, peripheral plantations within the spirit of this amendment.

I take it that this is the penultimate stage of this Bill on its passage towards Royal Assent and the last word, of course, will be said in another place. The noble Earl has explained the difference between his amendment and mine, and I must admit that it took a magnifying glass for me to spot it. But, if it is now right, I am delighted and we are all the more pleased that it should come from the Government Front Bench, because that surely gives it a safer passage through the other place than it would have had if it had merely had our names on it.

Apart from saying, "thank you", I hope that it is not in any way presumptuous if I say to the noble Earl that I thank him not just for the amendment but for the open-minded and helpful way in which he has presided over this whole discussion of the very special question of the Forest of Dean. It has been a pleasure. Some noble Lords on this side may possibly feel that the noble Earl has set an example which some of his colleagues might follow with advantage in other contentious areas.

However, I think that there are perhaps just three things that I would like to say very quickly in conclusion. I want to thank all those other noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have given such eloquent and steadfast support to this issue all the way through. I want publicly to congratulate the councillors and the officials in the Forest of Dean for the extraordinarily skilful way in which they organised the presentation of their case. And finally, since this is, I take it, the last speech that I shall make on this Forestry Bill, I think that the House can congratulate itself because at any rate in this one respect it will be sending back a slightly better Bill than it originally received. I beg to support the amendment.

My Lords, I am very happy to add our support to the amendment about the Forest of Dean. I think that the main thing it proves is that we foresters are such a splendid lot of people that not even a Scottish Earl can withstand us! He has given in to the representations from the Forest of Dean, graciously and sympathetically and I greatly appreciate it. The Forest of Dean is a very special place and it has problems of its own. I appreciate all that the noble Earl has said about differentiating the Forest of Dean from other forests in this country. I shall come to that subject, if I may, when we come to the next amendment. But for now I want to be gracious and happy, and as a forester to thank the noble Earl for what he has done; to say that I am very glad that we have had the debates in this place which will enable the Bill to go back to the other place with some improvements, and that this is perhaps the most important improvement of all.

I think that it would be ungracious to make any criticism. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, has more detailed information about some anxieties which remain, but tonight I do not want to be anxious; I merely want to thank the noble Earl and be glad about what we have.

My Lords, if I may, I shall respond and, first, thank noble Lords and the noble Baroness for their kind words. Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord McNair, asked me two questions. He asked what was the difference between his amendment and the Government amendment. I can tell him that it is a difference of drafting. The mysteries of the draftsmen are quite beyond me and I shall not try to explain unless he really wants a technical explanation—and I can see him shaking his head.

For the record, I should just like to state the position as regards the Forest of Dean. In our correspondence I think I explained that, except for the kind of sale which has been traditionally carried out in the forest, we were prepared to exempt from the provisions of Clause 1 the former Crown woodlands in the forest which were transferred, by order, to the Forestry Commissioners in 1926 under the provisions of the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act 1923. As the noble Lord well knows, the old Royal forest has had a long and chequered history and its boundaries were last defined by perambulation by commissioners appointed under the Dean Forest Commission Act 1831, although now there are, of course, significant areas within those confines which are privately owned and which for obvious reasons are outside the scope of this Bill.

There are certain other old Crown woodlands which were also transferred to the Forestry Commissioners in the 1920s which do not fall within the area of the former Royal Forest of Dean as defined 150 years ago, although they are contiguous with the forest and are commonly regarded as part of it. Because of their former Crown status and their long and intimate association with the Dean Forest, I confirm for the record that in implementing the disposal powers these areas too will be treated in all respects as though they are part of the forest. These areas include High-meadow Woods, Clearwell Woods and Hope Woods, and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, is more familiar with them than I am. I think that that should describe precisely what is meant by this amendment.

My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for that information. It completely clears up the anxieties that we had.

moved Amendment No. 4:

moved Amendment No. 5:

My Lords, we had a good debate in Committee on this issue. We had precisely the same amendment moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, who smartly withdrew it after my explanation. Now once more the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, has raised the same amendment yet again. Far be it from me to pronounce upon the Companion to Standing Orders in your Lordships' House, but I really wonder whether the raising of amendments again and again in these circumstances is either fruitful or edifying.

My Lords, would the noble Earl allow me to intervene? I was encouraged to put the amendment down again by the fact that he had been so kind and welcoming to the Forest of Dean situation, and therefore I thought it only right to raise again the question of the New Forest and other similar forests.

My Lords, with respect, it is not really a question of whether the noble Baroness feels it right to have yet another debate. It is whether it is an abuse of the processes of the House. I say that this very nearly is.

It is a new situation.

Nevertheless, the amendment has been put down, it has been moved, and I must deal with it. May I first of all turn to the Crown woods, where the noble Baroness refers to the old Crown woodlands transferred to the Forestry Commissioners under the Forestry (Transfer of Woods) Act 1923. She may have in mind—the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, certainly did—various other areas which are held on lease from the Crown Estate Commissioners. I said on the last occasion that the expression "Crown woods" in this context is imprecise, and it is as imprecise now as it was then.

The two main areas under the 1923 Act are the Forest of Dean and the New Forest. We have dealt with the Forest of Dean in Amendment No. 4, and that I think reflects the unique circumstances which obtain in the Forest of Dean and do not obtain in the New Forest. There are, for instance, special legal rights which obtain in the New Forest, and this is not the case in the Forest of Dean. Of course, we accept that the New Forest has, and deserves, special consideration. This is recognised in the guidelines. The people who live in the New Forest, the people who resort to the New Forest and who value it as a nature reserve, need fear absolutely nothing from this Bill. The only disposals which will be permitted, and which will be carried out by the Forestry Commission, are of the nature that have already taken place under existing powers.

The trouble with the noble Baroness's amendment, as in the case of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is that it is so restrictive that it would put us back even beyond the 1967 situation, and the small disposals and national realisations which the Commission have enjoyed up to now could not take place even for such mundane purposes as road widening, and so on. So I have to say that.

Other Crown woodlands transferred in 1923 we believe do not come into the same category as the Forest of Dean or the New Forest and do not deserve to be put in any particularly special category. But exactly the same considerations will apply to them; exactly the same guidelines, from which the noble Baroness has quoted, will apply as to any other wood, whether it is Crown woods or any other woods. The application of those guidelines militates against disposal except in the right instance, and of course there is the further safeguard of the sale and lease-back, and that is what the guidelines are for.

So far as leases are concerned, if those are troubling the noble Baroness, of course a lease, which is an amicably negotiated agreement in these instances, remains a lease. It is for a term of years at the end of which it can be renegotiated—and a great many are being renegotiated at the moment because they are coming to an end—but nevertheless there is no question of sale because the Forestry Commission is only the leaseholder.

Now I turn to forest parks. Unlike national parks, forest parks have no legal status. None at all. They are designated as forest parks because usually they have important landscape features. They really were designated on the basis of information being made available to the public so that they could repair to those parts of the forest for recreational purposes. Of course, the fact that they are, and have been, designated as forest parks will, I have no doubt, weigh very heavily with the commissioners when they decide their sales policy. It would be absurd to write this into the Bill because if the hard-faced monetarist Ministers were of the complexion and mind that the noble Baroness no doubt thinks they are, then the day after the Bill, with her amendment in it, went on to the statute book, the Forestry Ministers, if they were so minded, would instruct the Forestry Commissioners to say, "As from tomorrow all forest parks will be abolished", and they would then be known as something else of which I could think. Therefore, the whole point of the amendment would fall to the ground because she would be preventing the sale of forest parks which no longer existed.

By raising the matter in the way she has, she has ventilated once more the natural anxieties she has and which I hope I have managed to assuage, but for the reasons I have given, I remain of the view that this is a thoroughly badly drafted and ill-thought out amendment which I could not possibly accept, and I therefore hope the noble Baroness will appreciate my point of view.

My Lords, I am willing to accept in all modesty criticism of my drafting abilities, but I resent, if only slightly, the noble Earl's strictures in suggesting that I was getting near to the rules of order in tabling the amendment; if it had been out of order it would not be on the Order Paper tonight. It was tabled because we were in a new situation in view of the noble Earl's amendment—which I hoped I had graciously praised—about the Forest of Dean in that it raised a different situation. I therefore felt it was right to suggest that there might be other areas which could receive similarly sympathetic consideration.

While I do not wish to delay the House, I feel that I must quote this comment—it was made not from my side of the House—by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when we debated the Bill in Committee:

"It is not what people say during the debate that matters, whatever their personal integrity, and nobody's integrity is in question in this case. It is what is actually in the Bill that matters".

I feel it is absolutely right for us to ask that many of the assurances that have been given, in letters and speeches, should have statutory force. It is a serious constitutional position that we should be asked to legislate by reference to letters placed in the Library of this House. It was in that spirit that I tabled the amendment, which I have no alternative tonight but to withdraw. I feel that it was a fair and proper amendment to have moved, one which reflects the anxieties of many noble Lords in more than one part of the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved the following amendment:

Page 5, line 15, leave out ("and unless the context otherwise requires").

My Lords, not for the first time, and many of us hope not for the last, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for the way in which he from time to time helps us to keep our legislation clear of unnecessary verbiage and clear from the point of view of interpretation. Therefore, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, in thanking him for raising this matter in Committee, and obviously we have nothing but admiration for the amendment.