Lords Sitting of 23 July 1969

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Silting by the Lord Bishop of Exeter):
The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.

LORD GORE-BOOTH
Sir Paul Henry Gore-Booth, G.C.M.G., K.C.V.O., having been created Baron Gore-Booth, of Maltby in the West Riding of the County of York, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Strang and the Lord Franks.

SUGAR BEET PRODUCTION: CUPAR FACTORY CLOSURE
2.41 p.m.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what estimate has been made of the loss in production of sugar beet in Scotland that will follow the closing down of the beet sugar factory at Cupar.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Lord Hughes): My Lords, on this year's acreage the loss will be approximately 170, 000 tons. There will, however, be no overall loss in production throughout Great Britain.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that this is not only a matter of loss of employment for some 200 persons in Cupar, important though that is, but also a loss throughout the South and East of Scotland of some 13, 000 acres of sugar beet, and that this in turn affects more than 6, 000 farmers, many of whom have invested in expensive machinery in order to harvest the crop?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, first, we must remember that the 13, 000 acres will not go out of production. They will be used for other crops which are habitually grown in Scotland. On the subject of the machinery, I understand that beet machinery is written off over a period of five years. Secondly, the Sugar Corporation will continue the factory in operation until the end of the 1971 season. Beyond that, I can say that the Sugar Corporation will be willing to help farmers by taking their machinery, probably at the written-down value, which will be of considerable help to them as compared with selling it at perhaps only scrap prices to dealers.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the Sugar Corporation have considered the conversion of this plant for the extraction of polymers and sugar esters from sugar beet, the import of which costs this country something like £10 million a year?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, that is rather far away from the original Question. I would point out that although the Government own 36 per cent. of the share capital the British Sugar Corporation are not a Government body, but operate on a commercial basis. They are closing the Cupar factory because they are losing altogether at the rate of £250, 000 a year in its operation. They can make money, they say, out of producing in bigger factories in other parts of the country. I have no doubt that, having gone into the matter from a commercial point of view, if they saw any prospect of making money at Cupar by an alternative process, such as the noble Earl has described, their commercial instinct would have drawn them naturally towards it.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his solution of growing other crops is not really a satisfactory one? Is he aware that sugar beet occupies a pivotal position in the crop husbandry of these farms and that there is no other crop that the farmers can grow which will clean up the fields of pests, cereal diseases and so on, to give a break in the con rotation? Will the noble Lord have one further look at this matter in the interests of crop husbandry?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I cannot accept the point which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is making. The combined wheat and barley acreage in Scotland is 800, 000. The main break crops are potatoes, fodder crops and grass. The potato acreage was 104, 000 in 1969, fodder crops 190, 000, and rotation grass over 1, 700, 000. When one compares 13, 000 acres, the highest figure which beet has reached in Scotland for many years, to those other figures, it is infinitesimal.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that sugar beet tops are a valuable crop for feeding cattle in the winter, and the decision to close this factory will have a fairly serious effect, too, on the number of cattle these farmers will be able to keep throughout the winter?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I understand that the value of the tops is not what it used to be. But I would point out that if the fanners had recognised the value of sugar beet throughout the years and had not allowed the crop to fall to less than 7, 000 acres four years ago, this problem might well not have arisen.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, four years ago they were told that if they got the crop up to 13, 000 acres within a reasonable time they would be safe, and that at 16, 000 acres, I think it was, the break-even point would be reached. Is the noble Lord aware that it is thought that next year they would have reached this 16, 000 acres?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, considering that I negotiated that agreement with Sir Edmund Bacon, I am aware of it. It is a matter of personal regret to me that after three years circumstances should have changed and that even at 16, 000 acres the Sugar Corporation say Cupar cannot possibly make a profit. I reiterate that if the area had not fallen to 7, 000 acres, this situation might never have arisen.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether I am right in thinking that at least in England sugar beet is grown on a quota system? If this is correct, will the quota which Scotland is losing be transferred elsewhere?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the Answer which I orginally gave.

AIR-CONDITIONING OF HOUSE OF LORDS ROOMS
2.49 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask the Chairman of Committees whether it is intended to introduce air-conditioning into the Library, the Dining Room, the Guest Room and the Committee Rooms of the House; and if so, when.]
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, this is a matter for the House itself to decide, in the first instance, by referring it to the appropriate Committees of the House. I am informed that the Subcommittee of the Refreshment Department has already made an approach to the Ministry of Public Building and Works with a view to improving conditions in the Dining Room and the Bishops' Bar by installing some form of air conditioning. If the noble Lord wishes, I will place the question of providing air-conditioning in the Library, the Guest Room and the Committee Rooms of the House on the Agenda of the appropriate Committees.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Lord Chairman of Committees for his reply, and say that at this stage all I can ask him to do is to pursue his inquiries and recommendations as fiercely as possible.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I will do that.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, may I ask the Lord Chairman whether he is aware that the now growing custom of referring to the Peers' Bar as "the Bishops' Bar" is open to some misunderstanding, and that the Bishops have not been consulted about this nomenclature?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate. I was using a colloquialism when perhaps I should not have done so.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, when the experts are considering the ventilation in other parts of the House, they will have another look at certain parts of this Chamber? Is he aware, for example, that beneath the seat where I sit there is a constant cold draught, with the result that I am perpetually in a state of having cold feet and a hot head?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I will ask the appropriate Committee to take note of what he has said.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, would it not have been appropriate for the alterations that are now about to take place in the Dining Room to include the installation of air-conditioning?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think that these are separate matters; but I can assure the noble Lord that the Refreshment Department Committee which deals with these matters must have had a good reason for proceeding rather gradually with the proposals, which involve considerable public expenditure.

U.K. PAYMENTS TO UNITED NATIONS
2.52 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state what is the budget of contributions under all heads to the United Nations for the current financial year, or other more convenient accounting period; and whether they will also furnish for similar accounting periods the actual amount levied in the two past accounting periods.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): My Lords, our payment to the regular budget of the United Nations in the year 1969 was £3, 464, 000. Our payments in 1967 and
978
1968 were respectively £2, 708, 000 and £3, 096, 000.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, arising out of that reply, may I ask whether the Minister is aware from recently published figures (and I quote from Hansard) that the Fund was 60 million dollars in debt, and that over 40 countries were in arrears with their payments? Since the Fund must be assisted by us, would the noble Lord see his way to make available in the Library more up-to-date figures under those two headings? Could he also give some indication from whence funds are coming to finance so large an overdraft?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, perhaps I might make the point a little clearer. Do I understand the noble Lord to be asking for figures of arrears, or for more detailed figures of our contributions? I will willingly make both available.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I tried to make it clear under three headings: first, the total indebtedness of the Fund; second, the number of countries which are in arrears with their payments; and, third, since the amount of 60 million dollars was quoted, whence come; the finance for so large an overdraft?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the information in regard to the first two heads is easy to produce, and I wil1 see that it is produced. I shall have to look a little further into the implications of the third part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, but I will certainly make the information available.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his assurance.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask whether the countries which pay regularly have ever sat round a table to consider whether there could not be a rule which would bar those countries which do not attempt to pay at all?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, the question of what action, if any, can be taken against defaulters and those who are in arrears with their payments to the United Nations has been considered at great length many times, but I am afraid that so far no satisfactory answer has been found to this problem.

OVERSEAS REPRESENTATION: DUNCAN REPORT PROPOSALS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when they propose to announce their decisions on the recommendations of the Duncan Report on Britain's representation overseas.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said on July 16, before we can give a specific endorsement to the conclusions of the Review Committee on Overseas Representation, we need to go further into their probable consequences. It is clearly too early to give any date for decisions to be announced.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming that reply, is my noble friend aware that these recommendations would seriously affect future foreign policy, involving concentration upon Western Europe and America and limitation of interest in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean? In view of these considerations, can we have an assurance that Parliament will be allowed to discuss this Report before decisions are reached by the Government?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the statement my noble friend has made is clearly one of the reasons why we need to take time in considering these proposals. So far as a debate is concerned, if my noble friend will look at what the Leader of the House said on July 16, he will see that my noble friend said that he would welcome it.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in this Report the emphasis is on the financial, the commercial, as compared with the political and cultural functions of our overseas representations, and that this represents a value judgment which many of us do not share?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, clearly these proposals have caused concern in
980
many quarters. Again, this is one of the reasons why we wish to have time to consider the point.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he read the warning which was given on Sunday by the Prime Minister of Singapore, one of the most far-seeing statesmen in Asia, that this Report reflects a British desertion of the interests and welfare of the Third World? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government look most seriously at this Report before accepting its recommendation?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have already given my noble friend that assurance; but in view of his pressure on this matter may I say, in the firmest possible terms, that the British Government have No intention of abruptly abandoning their interests or responsibilities in the Commonwealth, in the world beyond Europe and North America. The Duncan Report, however, is a useful guide to managerial method.

THE CONTINENTAL SHELF
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half past three my noble friend Lord Stonham, will be making a Statement on Continental Shelf Licensing.

CLYDE PORT AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
2.58 p.m.
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

DUNDEE CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

EAST GREEN, ABERDEEN ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (KING'S LYNN) BILL
House in Committee (on Recommitment).
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) BILL
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FAMILY LAW REFORM BILL [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to
982
acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Family Law Reform Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. Her Majesty's consent was not given to the Bill in this House because It was not necessary. It has, however, been rendered necessary by certain of the Commons Amendments, which is why I now signify it to your Lordships at this rather unusual stage.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. I think that only the first Amendment is in any way controversial; the rest are rather technical, although I shall have to explain them. If the House approves, I think I am able to take the last seven of the 18 Amendments together.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendment
(References are to Bill (75) as first printed for the Commons)
[No. 1.]
Clause 2. page 3, line 8, leave out "twenty" and insert "eighteen".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The first Amendment, I think the only controversial one, is the Amendment by which your Lordships' House increased the age of marriage without consent from 18, as it was in the Bill, to 20. Your Lordships may remember that at the Third Reading in this House I pointed out that in Committee we had had a very good argument, in a well-attended Committee, when the majority for the Amendment was 77 to 71, a somewhat narrow one. I pointed out that if it was permissible for a moment to disregard the right reverend Prelates, on the ground that they were neither Life Peers nor hereditary Peers, if my arithmetic was right, had it not been for the hereditary Peers only some 26 Members of the House would have supported the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. I pointed out that it was understandable that if one had a title, and perhaps landed

983
estates as well, the question of whom one's eldest son married was of considerably more importance to one than it was to an ordinary person, but that we should have to see what the Members of the other place, who come from a rather broader social spread, might have to say.
I do not think your Lordships will want me to repeat the arguments which were used in Committee in this House. The only matter of interest which has happened since, although I was not aware of it then, is that there was a Committee sitting on the marriage law of Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon, the Chairman of the Scottish Law Commission, is Chairman of that Committee. They reported in May. As your Lordships know, for generations it has been the law in Scotland that any young people aged 16 can marry without anyone's consent, and one of the matters the Committee were considering was whether the age should be raised to 18 or 20, or what. They have, in a sense, a good deal of experience of what happens in countries where consent is necessary, because of the increasing numbers of young people who go to Scotland from other countries to marry.
They say in their Report:
"During the past five years about 1, 750 marriages of young couples from the Federal Republic of Germany "
have gone to Scotland to marry. Another thing which I think is not without interest is their reference in the Report to the evidence submitted to them by the Scottish Marriage Guidance Council. They say in their Report:
"Their evidence was based upon an elaborate investigation into the circumstances of 350 young couples who had sought the advice of the Council."
That is to say, young couples who had married and whose marriages were in difficulties. The Report goes on:
"Of the cases reviewed, 60 per cent. of the young men aged 16 and 17 had troubled backgrounds (i.e. coming from a broken home, an incomplete home, or a quarrelling home), and 59 per cent. of the young women aged 16 and 17 had troubled backgrounds. A similar pattern emerged in respect of young men and women in the sample aged from 18 to 20 at the date of marriage, the corresponding percentages in these cases being about 50 per cent. We felt it would be unreasonable to suggest that in such cases the parents are the right people to give or withhold consent. Parents who are already embittered by
984
their own experience of marriage may be poor judges when it comes to advising their children. No amount of legislation will make parents into good parents or wise parents and, keeping in mind that the Council were concerned with young couples whose marriages had already run into difficulties, we felt that the Council had not made out a case to the effect that such difficulties would in general be less likely to arise had parental consent been a condition precedent. The tenor of the Council's evidence really was that, of the early marriages which failed, the majority were of young persons who probably could not turn to their parents for guidance, and who might in all probability have been driven into early marriage simply because they could not find security and affection in their parents' homes. They could not be reasonably required to obtain the approval of the very people who had failed them."
I thought that might be of some interest to your Lordships. As I have said, I do not propose to go through the arguments which were fully deployed before, and I hope that your Lordships will accordingly be content to accept the view which has been taken by the other place. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.
Moved, That his House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I agree with the noble and learned Lord that it would not be apposite to resurrect the arguments on this point, although I agree with him that it is interesting to note what was said by the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbrandon. Accordingly, I would not advise those on this side of the House, or those who supported my noble friend Lord Brooke's Amendment before, again to send this matter back to another place.
The only thing I should like to say to the noble and learned Lord arises out of one point in the remarks he has just made. I think this must be about the third time that his arithmetic on the number of hereditary Peers who voted for this Amendment has been displayed before the House. At the time when the Amendment was passed, it may have been of some marginal importance and relevance to what was going on; but even then I should have thought the noble and learned Lord had been in this House long enough to know that not all the hereditary Peers necessarily have large estates. Quite a number of them have not, and quite a

985
number of them have not had for a very long time, and the question of whether or not they voted for this Amendment cannot conceivably be said to derive from their hereditary possession of large acres of one sort or another.
Although at the time it may have been of some importance to say that, I really think that since that time remarkable events have taken place as a result of the Government's attempting to deal with this very matter of hereditary Peerages; and, if it ever was relevant, it cannot now be relevant, in view of what the Government have done since the Committee stage in this House. We are here now not necessarily on our own account, but because the Government have abandoned their own legislation, and I hope that we shall not hear any more of that sort of argument from the noble and learned Lord. Nevertheless, that said I hope that the House will now accept this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know the precise proportion of your Lordships who have landed estates, but I do know that all hereditary Peers have hereditary titles.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord apply his mind to the number of hereditary Peers who took part in the recent Division in this House on the Redistribution of Seats (No. 2) Bill? If he will do so, I think he will arrive at a different conclusion from that at which he arrived in this case.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this must be regarded in no way as an attack upon the hereditary Peers. But it is the fact that when one is considering marriage, or age, social class has a very great effect on practices, and the higher the social class the later the average age of marriage. The common practice now of marrying so very young applies largely, or mostly, to those who leave school at 16; and when persons like your Lordships think about young people of 18 they instinctively think about university students. But this is a small minority. All I meant to indicate was that people's views naturally depend on their own experiences, and that your Lordships diversities are somewhat less, perhaps, than those of the other place.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendment
[No. 2]
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause—
Modification of enactments relating to Duke of Cornwall and other children of Her Majesty
".—(1) Section 1 (1) of this Act shall apply for the construction of the expression "minor" in section 2 (2) of the Civil List Act 1952 (which relates to the amount payable for the Queen's Civil List while the Duke of Cornwall is for the time being a minor) and accordingly—

(a) section 2 (2)(b) of that Act (which relates to the three years during which the Duke is over 18 but under 21); and

(b) in section 2 (2) (a) of that Act the words "for each year whilst he is under the age of eighteen years",

are hereby repealed except in relation to any period falling before section 1 of this Act comes into force.
(2) In section 4 (1) (a) of the said Act of 1952 (under which benefits are provided far the children of Her Majesty, other than the Duke of Cornwall, who attains the age of 21 or marry) for the words "twenty-one years" there shall be substituted the words "eighteen years" but no sum shall be payable by virtue of this subSection in respect of any period falling before section 1 of this Act comes into force.
(3) In section 38 of the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1863 (under which certain rights and powers of the Duke of Cornwall may. while he is under 21, be exercised on his behalf by the Sovereign or persons acting under Her authority) for the words "twenty-one years" wherever they occur there stall be substituted the words "eighteen years""
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with Amendment No. 2 I think I can also speak to Amendment No. 11, which is linked with it. This is the matter which has given rise to Her Majesty's consent. It has been agreed, as a matter of principle, that if it is right to fix the age of majority at 18 years for the generality of Her Majesty's subjects it is right to do so for Her Majesty's children; and that there is no logical reason for refraining from applying that principle in the implementation of statutory provisions regarding the application of the Duchy of Cornwall revenues, the discharge of the rights and duties of the Duke of Cornwall in relation to the management of the Duchy estates and revenues, and the payment of annuities from the Consolidated Fund for the younger children of the Queen. These statutory provisions are akin to private settlements in some ways. The age of majority for the purpose of future private

987
settlements will be 18. For existing private settlements it will be 21, but it is of course open to settlors to alter it to 18 if they wish. There seems no reason not to alter these provisions in a similar way.
This case is the stronger, in view of the fact that both the Prince of Wales and Princess Anne, who are over 18, though neither of them is yet 21, have begun to play an independent part in carrying out the duties which fall to other Members of the Royal Family than the Queen herself. This part will undoubtedly steadily increase as older Members of the Family find it necessary to reduce their own commitments. The Duke of Cornwall is, of course, always the Heir Apparent, and as Heir Apparent already comes of full age at 18 for all purposes of the Regency Act 1937, under Section 2 of the Regency Act 1953. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord said this is a technical point, but it is one on which it seems to me that the consent and approval of Her Majesty the Queen is really the governing factor. If Her Majesty thinks that this is right in relation to those Statutes which concern members of the Royal Family, then I cannot imagine that any Member of this House would wish to demur. I certainly would not, and I hope that the House will agree to this new clause.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendment
[No. 3]
Clause 14, page 12, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) There is hereby abolished, as respects disposition made after the coming into force of this section, any rule of law that a disposition in favour of illegitimate children not in being when the disposition takes effect is void as contrary to public policy."
3.15 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it was undoubtedly the law at one time that such a disposition as is referred to in this Amendment was void. The basis has been said to be, alternatively, that it would lead to uncertainty, or that
988
it would cause people to produce profligate illegitimate children. Whether the law is still in force is a matter on which I could address your Lordships at some length. The Master of the Rolls in a recent case said:
"I have no doubt that such an argument would have been acceptable in the nineteenth century. The judges in those days used to think that if they allowed illegitimate children to take a benefit they were encouraging immorality. They laid down narrow pedantic rules such as that stated by Lord Chelmsford in Hill v. Crook: 'No gift, however express, to unborn illegitimate persons is allowed by law …'. In laying down such rules, they acted in accordance with the then contemporary morality. Even the Victoria fathers thought that they were doing right when they turned their erring daughters out of the house. They visited the sins of the fathers on the children—with a vengeance."
Then the noble and learned Lord added:
"I think that we should throw over those harsh rules of the past. They are not rules of law. They are only guides to the construction of documents. They are quite out of date. We no longer penalise the illegitimate child. We should replace those old rules by a more rational approach. If they are wide enough to include an illegitimate child, we should so interpret them."
It being doubtful in that state of affairs whether or not the rule still exists, this Amendment provides for its abolition in accordance with the modern principle that the illegitimate child should not be penalised. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I read the Report of the debate in another place when this Amendment was introduced, and I think the noble and learned Lord has quoted rather more of the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, the Master of the Rolls, in Sydall v. Castings than was quoted on that occasion. I am not sure that that case was directly on this point. I think it rather covered the general principle of whether or not one interpreted documents so as to include or exclude illegitimate children. There was a certain amount of dissent about this provision on a technical ground, and it rather goes with one of the other clauses of the Bill about which my honourable friend

989
the Member for Hendon, South, was particularly concerned and on which he produced a Minority Report in the Russell Committee Report raising similar points.
I would not suggest for a moment that this Amendment should be disagreed to, but I believe that what emerges most clearly from what was said, both in the debate on this Amendment and in the debate on Part II in general, is that it will be absolutely essential in future (because none of this is retrospective) that those who draft documents into which this type of interpretation might at some stage come should be fully aware of what is in Part II of this Bill. They should also make quite certain that their drafting takes account of the changes in the law which have been brought about by this Bill. It will no longer be apposite or sufficient to deal with the intentions of testators and settlors, and other people, in accordance with rules which have for so long governed these matters—and, indeed, as the noble and learned Lord said, this rule was rather an obscure one. They will now have to be specific, if they do not wish illegitimate children to be included. So long as the legal profession—and anybody else who has to draft deeds of this sort—realises that this is now the situation, then I believe that the intention of the person for whom the deed is being drafted will be adequately safeguarded. But it does depend upon this, as I think the noble and learned Lord will probably agree.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am in complete agreement with what the noble Viscount has said.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend a question? Does this mean that, if a man says in his will, "I bequeath my estate to my children to be shared between them", then an illegitimate child of his would automatically rank equally with the other children?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment really deals with a different case, where a disposition is made in favour of children not yet born; it was only the child who is not yet born who was subject to the previous rule.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendment
[No. 4]
Clause 16, page 13, line 19, after "issue" insert "or on the father of an illegitimate child".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This is purely a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendment
[No. 5]
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
Policies of assurance and property in industrial and provident societies.
".—(1) In section !1 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 and section 2 of the Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Scotland) Act 1880 (policies of assurance effected for the benefit of children) the ex-expression "children" shall include illegitimate children.
(2) In section 25 (2) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 (application of property in registered society where member was illegitimate and is not survived by certain specified relatives) for the words "and leaves no widow, widower or issue, and his mother does not survive him" there shall be substituted the words "and leaves no widow, widower or issue (including any illegitimate child of the member) and neither of his parents survives him".
(3) Subsection (1) of this section docs not affect the operation of the said Acts of 1882 and 1880 in relation to a policy effected before the coming into force of that subsection; and subsection (2) of this section does not affect the operation of the said Act of 1965 in relation to a member of a registered society who dies before the coming into force of the said subsection (2)."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is one of those matters on which I can go into a great deal of detail on any point if your Lordships desire me to do so. There are three subsections to the new clause. The first extends Section 11 of the Married Women's Property Act 1882 and Section 2 of the Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Scotland) Act 1880 to cover insurance policies taken out on the life of the assured in favour of his illegitimate children. Subsection (2) makes an

991
amendment to Section 25 (2) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 which is consequential on Clause 13. Section 25 makes provision for a case where a member of a registered society dies leaving in the society shares, el cetera, not exceeding £500. It enables the committee of the society to pay the money to persons appearing to be entitled to it without any need for a grant of representation to the deceased member's estate. Subsection (1) of this section does not affect the operation of the said Acts of 1882 and 1880 in relation to a policy effected before the coming into force of the subsection.
My Lords, this is an Amendment which prevents Clause 19 affecting retrospectively any existing policy of life assurance or the operation of Section 25 (2) of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965 in respect of a person dying before its commencement. What it all comes to is that these are clauses clarifying the position—necessarily, I think, and rightly—in relation to certain questions which arise on policies of insurance and property in industrial and provident societies. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendment
[No. 6]
Clause 18, page 14, line 10, leave out "for the purpose of those tests" and insert "within a period to be specified in the direction".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. This is a minor and uncontroversial Amendment. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendment
[No. 7]
Clause 18, page 14, line 12, at end insert "or from any, or any two, of those persons".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with Amendment No. 7 I can
992
also discuss Amendment No. 9. Amendment No. 7 is one of substance: No. 9 is an unimportant consequential Amendment. At present, Clause 18 is framed I so as to allow only what may be called three-way blood tests; that is, tests on the child, the mother and the alleged father. This is in that Part of the Bill which deals with blood tests. This will undoubtedly be the type of test directed by the court in the vast majority of cases, as it is the best and most certain. The purpose of these Amendments is to allow the court, in the very rare case where it may seem desirable, to order a two-way test on the child and alleged father alone, or even, although it seems a rather academic possibility, a one-way test on either the child or the alleged father alone where there are in existence records concerning the blood group of the other against which the sample test can be checked. I can deal with this point in more detail if necessary. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I rise simply to welcome this Amendment. No doubt the occasions will be rare, but I suppose it is possible that the party alleged to be the father of the child may be dead, or in some other way not available, and as the Bill was drafted before this Amendment was put in it looked as though this would hamper the court in requiring the blood test to be carried out. There are other reasons, no doubt, which could raise themselves in this connection, but I should think that this flexibility was admirable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Commons Amendment
[No. 8]
Clause 18, page 14, line 13, after "revoke" insert "or vary".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is a very minor and almost a drafting Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 9]
Clause 20, page 16, line 24, leave out from "sample" to "are" in line 26 and insert "to be tested for the purpose of giving effect to a direction under section 18 of this Act".
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I dealt with this Amendment when discussing Amendment No. 7. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 10]
Clause 21, page 17, line 11, at end insert—
"(3) Where any person named in a direction under section 18 of this Act fails to consent to the taking of a blood sample from himself or from any person named in the direction for whom he has the care and control, he shall bo deemed for the purposes of this section, to have failed to take a step required of him for the purpose of giving effect to the direction."
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment for the removal of doubt. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos. 12 to 18]
Clause 26, page 19, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) section (Policies of assurance and property in industrial and provident societies) extends to Scotland; "
Schedule 1, page 20, line 31, at end insert—

"c. 44.

The Customs and Excise Act 1952.

Section

244(2)(a).

Entry invalid unless made by person over 21."

Page 21, line 30, at end insert—

"1946 S.R. &O. 1156.

The North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Borrowing and Stock) Regulations 1946.

Regulation and (2).

36(1).

Stock held by persons under 21.

1949 S.I. 751.

The Gas (Stock) Regulations 1949.

Regulation and (2).

19 (1)

Stock held by persons under 21."

Page 21, leave out lines 31 to 33.
Page 21, line 37, at end insert—

"1955 S.I. 1752.

The South of Scotland Electricity Board (Borrowing and Stock) Regulations 1955."

Regulation and (2).

30 (1)

Stock held by persons under 21.

Page 21, line 42, at end insert—

"1957 S.I. 2228.

The Electricity (Stock) Regulations 1957.

Regulation and (2).

22 (1)

Stock held by persons under 21.

1963 S.I. 935.

The Exchange of Securities (General) Rules 1963.

Rule 1(1).

Definition of "minor".

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 11]
Clause 26, page 19, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) section (Modification of enactments relating to Duke of Cornwall and other children of Her Majesty), so far as it relates to the Civil List Act 1952, extends to Scotland and Northern Ireland; "
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I dealt with this Amendment in dealing with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the next Amendment is a matter of application to Scotland and the rest are simply matters which have turned up since the Committee stage, where "21" has to be changed to "18" in a formal way. I was wondering whether the noble and learned Lord would think that they were suitable to be taken together, because they all seem to me to be drafting.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Viscount. I was going to make that very proposal myself.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

1965 S.I. 1420.

The Government Stock Regulations 1965.

Regulation 14 (1), (2), (3) and (5).

Stock held by persons under 21."

Page 21, line 47, at end insert—

"1968 S.I. 2049.

The Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Regulations 1968.

Regulation 63 and, in Schedule 1, Forms 15 to 18."

Forms of notice of marriage.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects, I will take Amendments Nos. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 together. The noble Viscount is quite right in what he has said. They are of the nature which he has described. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 12 to 18.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRUSTEE SAVINGS BANKS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to; one other Amendment agreed to with an Amendment, and certain other Amendments disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Amendment and Reason to be printed.
POST OFFICE BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to, and certain other Amendments disagreed to, with Reasons for such disagreement: the said Reasons to be printed.

JUDICIAL OFFICES (SALARIES) ORDER 1969
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order 1969 be approved. Those who are usually called the lower judiciary embrace the President of the Lands Tribunal, the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the Chairman of the Inner London Sessions, the Judge
996
Advocate General, the Official Referees, the Chairmen of the Middlesex, Kent, Lancashire, South-East London and South-West London Sessions, the County Court Judges, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, the senior and chief Masters and Registrars, the Master of the Court of Protection, the Deputy-Chairman of the Greater London Sessions, the Deputy-Chairman of the Lancashire Sessions, the Chairman of the Foreign Compensation Commission, the Metropolitan Magistrates, the Provincial Magistrates Grade 1, Masters and Registrars, the vice-Chairman of the Foreign Compensation Commission, the Provincial Magistrates Grade 2, Members of the Foreign Compensation Commission and Provincial Magistrates Grade 3.
Ever since the war, the remuneration of the lower judiciary has followed that of the higher civil servants as recommended by what was the Franks Committee and what is now the Plowden Committee. They are, in fact, dealt with in three different ways. Remuneration of members of the Foreign Compensation Commission is increased administratively after consulting the Foreign Office; the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the County Court Judges, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and other London stipendiary Magistrates have their remuneration increased by Orders approved by both Houses of Parliament; and the remuneration of the remainder is increased administratively, those of the Provincial Magistrates after consultation with the local authorities. Thus one can understand the distinction which is being drawn between those provided by the Crown, those provided by the central Government and those provided by the local authorities. But it is for historical, rather than other reasons, that Orders are necessary in some cases but not necessary in others.
It follows, therefore, that to-day we are concerned only with those who are the subject matter of the Orders, namely, the Recorders of Liverpool and Manchester, the County Court Judges, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and the other London stipendiary Magistrates. The

997
extent of the increase since the date their remuneration was last increased is at the rate of approximately 3½ per cent. per annum and therefore falls within the prices and incomes policy. The Order has already been approved in another place, and your Lordships' Special Orders Committee have reported that the draft Order does not raise important questions of policy or principle; that it is founded on the precedent of previous Orders made under Section 1 of the Judicial Offices (Salaries and Pensions) Act 1959 and Section 9 of the County Court Act 1959; and that, in the opinion of the Committee, the Draft Order can be passed by the House without special attention. I shall be happy to answer any questions which may arise. The amount of the increase and the salary from which it is being increased appears in each case in the Order itself. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Judicial Offices (Salaries) Order 1969, laid before the House on 11th July 1967, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I want to say only a few words on this Order, words of welcome. From time to time in Parliament these days we pass legislation which lays additional tasks on the County Court Judges and, indeed, so far as that goes, on the Chairmen and other members of the Lands Tribunal. It was a matter discussed last night in this House on the Housing Bill. There is no lack of work for them, any more than there is any lack of work, I am sorry to say, for the Magistrates in criminal courts who are also covered by this Bill, and the Recorders in Liverpool and in Manchester. If one is going to get people of proper calibre to do this job, I am sure that it is right that their salaries should be brought up to date on almost an automatic basis, as the noble and learned Lord has explained, in line with the senior civil servants. Therefore there can be nothing but good in this Order so far as I can see. Could the noble and learned Lord confirm the methods of dealing with the salaries of those who are not included in this Order? Is it right that they are all having their salaries increased, but by different methods that do not need the approval of this House in accordance with the general principles in this Order?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords. All are being dealt with similarly, although administratively. The only difference between the two is something of a hardship on those whose remuneration can only be increased by Order. It is that if, on the recommendations of the Plowden Committee, senior civil servants have an increase of remuneration which is retrospective, this can be, and is, given to those dealt with administratively, but owing to the terms of the Act which provides for Orders those who have to obtain an Order cannot obtain the increase to a date antecedent to the date of the passing of the Order. That is one of the reasons why we are anxious that this Order should be passed before Parliament rises.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TAY ROAD BRIDGE (SCHEME) APPROVAL ORDER 1969
3.37 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Tay Road Bridge (Scheme) Approval Order 1969, a draft of which was laid before the House on 26th June, be approved. The original Tay Road Bridge Order of 1962 authorised capital expenditure on the bridge up to 1. maximum of £4-5 million. It also provided that any excess expenditure above this should be defrayed by means of a scheme agreed by the Tay Road Bridge Joint Board and its three constituent authorities—Dundee Town Council, Fife County Council and Angus County Council—approved by the Secretary of State. Under this provision the maximum capital expenditure was increased in 1966 to £6-5 million, in the light of costs as then estimated, when the works were not quite complete, and the need to allow a margin for the accumulation of interest on loans made towards the cost of the works, so far as the interest could not be paid immediately because of the insufficiency of toll revenue in the early years before traffic builds up.
The present Order, which increases the limit on the capital cost to £7-25 million, is required because the margin allowed in 1966 for accumulated interest has been used up by increases in the final cost of the works and a compensation settlement with the Dundee Harbour Trust higher

999
than had been envisaged. The present cost of the scheme, including compensation and capitalisation of interest is now calculated to be £6-6 million. It is expected that accumulated interest will bring this to £7038 million in a few years' time, after which the toll revenue will be sufficient to allow repayment to begin. The margin between £7-25 million and £7-038 million will allow for any errors in estimating toll revenue. The remaining provisions of the Order are consequential. They continue the present arrangements under which advances towards capital expenditure are made by the Secretary of State and the constituent authorities of the Joint Board in the proportion 75: 25, and the local authority loans are given preference in repayment over the Government loan. I can assure the House that neither we nor the Joint Board see any difficulty in repaying the loans within the statutory period of 60 years, and on present traffic trends the Joint Board have just decided not to increase the present tolls.
Moved, That the Draft Tay Road Bridge (Scheme) Approval Order 1969, laid before the House on 26th June, 1969, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, spoke of the necessity for increasing the amount of traffic using the Tay Road Bridge. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government and the noble Lord realise—he certainly ought to realise—that the build-up of heavy traffic over that bridge is very much impeded by the excessive and exhorbitant charge of 10s. per lorry. If the charge were reduced to 5s. it would certainly mean a considerably larger volume of heavy traffic crossing the bridge. At the same time this would help us in Perth, where our traffic congestion problem is greatly accentuated by the lorries which come through our city instead of using the Tay Road Bridge as they otherwise would.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will be aware that consistently since it was opened, the traffic using the Tay Road Bridge has been in excess of the estimates which were made before the construction was authorised, and that this growth is still going on. The Tay Road Bridge Joint Board
1000
decided, I think about a year ago, to reduce the toll charge on buses travelling across the bridge, and I think we can safely leave it to the Board to act in the best interests of (a) their own finances, and (b) their customers; having regard to their obligation to repay the loan within 60 years.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication of the increase in the traffic over the bridge during the past twelve months, say, or for some other convenient period?
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry, my Lords, but I do not have those figures by me. What I do know is what I read regularly in my local newspaper about the numbers that travel over the bridge in 24 hours. The figure is much more consistently at the 9, 000 and 10, 000 mark than at the figure of something like 4, 500 which was envisaged when the scheme was approved in 1961-62.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WHITE FISH (INSHORE VESSELS) AND HERRING SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1969
3.42 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme be approved. Your Lordships may recall that in recent years the subsidy scheme which has been presented for approval about this time has dealt with all sections of the white fish and herring fleets. Following a review of the methods of assisting the fishing industry, the Government decided that the subsidy for the deep sea section of the white fish fleet should be put on a new basis, and a scheme giving effect to that decision was passed earlier this year. The scheme now before your Lordships deals with the subsidy for inshore white fish vessels—in other words, those white fish vessels under 80ft in length—and all herring vessels, which, with one or two exceptions, are also under 80ft.
The inshore and herring fleets account for about a third of the value of British landings. In 1968 their landings of white

1001
fish and herring were valued at £18-4 million, an increase of nearly £1 million over that for the previous year. The herring element of the catch showed a small decrease in both the quantity and the value of landings, but I am glad to be able to inform your Lordships that in the first six months of 1969 herring fishing results are better than in the corresponding period of 1968. The fleets were generally profitable in 1968. In Scotland, where the inshore and herring fleets have a special importance, most sections made profits which on average were higher than those of 1967. The vessels based in England and Northern Ireland did not fare as well, but overall operating profits before depreciation were about 5 per cent. higher than in 1967. The Government consider that in the light of these results, the level of subsidy in the year beginning August 1, 1969, should be the same as in the current year, and the scheme is intended to achieve that end. Your Lordships may have noticed that the rates of white fish subsidy per day at sea are about 10 per cent. higher than at present. This is because a change in the conditions of subsidy will exclude certain days spent in port from the end of the voyage until the catch is sold. The two changes are estimated to be self-balancing, but will give a greater reward to days spent fishing. There is a slight increase in one of the herring subsidy rates, but this again is to compensate for a variation in the subsidy conditions.
Some reference has been made in the past to the number of Acts cited on the preamble to schemes of this kind, and the desirability of consolidation. I am sure it is the wish of your Lordships' House that the Bill introduced last month for this purpose will make good progress after a new start next Session. The inshore and herring fleets make a valuable contribution to our fish supplies and are also of considerable social importance in providing the economic foundation of many coastal communities, particularly in some of the more remote parts of the United Kingdom. The Government consider that this scheme gives them an appropriate measure of assistance and I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the White Fish (Inshore Vessels) and Herring Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1969, laid before the
1002
House on 10th July 1969, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
3.45 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, for describing to us the purpose of this Order and I welcome it. As the noble Lord has indicated, on the global figures the inshore herring fleet is doing fairly well and slightly better than last year; but he was frank enough to acknowledge that there is some variation between one port and another, and I suspect that in some cases it may be considerable. I would therefore ask him whether it is the Government's intention to taper off this subsidy. The noble Lord has told us that the net effect of the rates this year is designed to be the same as it was last year; but the value of the subsidy has, step by step, been coming down over the last four years. I should like to hear from him whether it is the intention of the Government to try to taper off this subsidy completely.
I would ask the noble Lord a point about the manufacturing capacity for fish meal. As the noble Lord knows, this is a matter of some anxiety to inshore fishermen, especially in the more remote parts, and probably in Scotland particularly, where the markets are distant and the fishermen often have catches which they cannot easily get to market. I think it worth asking the noble Lord to look at this matter and perhaps to comment on it now, if he can. At the present time we are importing a large quantity of fish meal, some £29 million worth per annum. We are still, I understand, operating the type of regulation which requires fishermen to throw undersize fish back into the sea whereas our competitors who export large quantities of fish meal to us undoubtedly are manufacturing that meal mainly from undersize fish. I wonder whether it is quite realistic to keep on this regulation.
I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he and the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the Scottish Department, will give some further thought to the possibility of financial help for the manufacturing process as being a sound way to help the fishing industry. I believe I am right in saying that the disposal price of fish for manufacturing purposes goes down to as little as

1003
8s. a cran, which is not an economic price at all. Would it not help to put a stable bottom into the industry if the realisation price were somewhat higher? If this gave rise to a greater production of fish meal—for which we find a very ready market and save imports at the same time—would this not be of economic benefit to the country as a whole? This would be a very short step from subsidies in agriculture. I should think that there is still a good deal of fish meal which goes into fertilisers, and so we are very near the fertiliser subsidies; therefore it would be doing good at the consumption end. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look at that point.
The slight technical adjustment in rates seems to make entirely good sense by giving a slightly higher rate for days spent at sea and cutting out days in port. I assume that it has been agreed with the British Trawler Federation. The last point I should like to put to the noble Lord concerns the minimum price scheme in the industry which, of course, has been discussed for many years. There are some in favour of it and some against. Personally, I have always thought that it would be a good scheme for the industry. I understand that the White Fish Authority are proceeding with a scheme for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Could the noble Lord tell us whether this means that the scheme for England is still under consideration, still in process of being worked out in discussion with the Departments, or does it mean that it has been dropped? I would favour a minimum price scheme. As the noble Lord has already generously acknowledged, this is a valuable industry, valuable in its contribution to our tables and valuable in providing employment for coastal communities throughout the country. They certainly have my best wishes. I hope that this scheme will continue to make their business profitable.
3.51 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, the Minister touched on the question of the consolidation of sea fisheries legislation. It is certainly true that our sea fisheries legislation is, and has been for a long time now, in a state of complete chaos. If any noble Lord doubts it, let him read the opening paragraph of this Order, which is said to be laid
1004
"… in exercise of the powers conferred upon them by section 5 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1953 (a) (as amended by section 2 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1957 (b), by section 37 of. and paragraph 18 of Schedule 2 to, the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962 (c) and by section 22 of and paragraphs 10 to 13 inclusive of Schedule 1 to, the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 (d)), section 3 of the White Fish and Herring Industries Act 1957 (as amended by section 37 of, and paragraph 22 of Schedule 2 to, the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962 and section 22 of, and paragraphs 16 to 19 inclusive of Schedule 1 to, the Sea Fisheries Act 1968), section 1 of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1962 and sections 1 and 2 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 … "
Her Majesty's Government are as well aware as I am of the need for the consolidation of this mass of sea fisheries legislation and I was glad when a Bill was introduced into this House for this purpose and given a Second Reading on June 26. That was pretty late in the Session, but I suppose that the Bill was introduced in the hope that it was going to become law during this Session. Obviously, it has been lost, and it is not the only Government Bill that has been lost in this Session. So the question arises: what hope is there that this sea fisheries consolidation legislation is going to be introduced in the lifetime of the present Parliament? All I can say is that I shall believe it when I see it.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I first deal with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale? What he has said amply justifies the four lines which I devoted to this subject in my speech. I do not propose to add anything, other than to say that when—not "if "—this legislation arrives, I will give it the same welcome as undoubtedly the noble Lord will give it. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, raised a number of points. May I first of all thank him for the welcome which he has given to the Order?
On the subject of the tapering of subsidies, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the statement of the Minister in another place on May 15 last year, in which he said:
"I turn now to the inshore and herring fleets. We look to this section of the industry for a substantial contribution to import saving. To this end, we propose to remove existing restrictions on grants and loans for inshore and herring vessels in line with the policy for the deep sea fleet. We also propose to increase the overall limit on the value of these grants and loans from 85 per cent. to 90 per cent. of the gross cost of a vessel. This will mean

1005
an immediate increase in the maximum loan from 40 per cent. to 45 per cent."
The final lines directly refer to the noble Lord's question.
"The operating subsidies to the inshore and herring fleets are not subject to automatic reduction and will continue to be reviewed annually in the light of their profitability, their importance to local economies, and the import-saving objective."—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/68, cols. 1314-15.]
Your Lordships will recollect that though I pointed out that generally the level of profitability in the industry was higher in 1968 than in 1967, the Government are recommending in this Order that the rate should be made at the same level. So we are certainly not doing any further tapering this year.
On the subject of industrial fishing, I would point out that some encouragement has been given to industrial fishing. The 1968 subsidy scheme was amended earlier this year so that white fish subsidy can now be paid in respect of fish of a kind not normally sold for human consumption. The so-called 10 per cent. rule has been brought into our domestic legislation to enable the boats using a small mesh net for industrial species to land for reduction purposes an amount of undersized fish of the protected species up to 10 per cent. by weight of the industrial catch. Meantime, the fisheries laboratories, the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board are carrying out studies of various aspects of potential industrial fisheries.
I would point out to your Lordships that since fishing for the human consumption market for white fish and herring is itself an important saving, there is no advantage in switching part of the present fleet to industrial fishing. There may, however, be certain slack periods when industrial fishing could be fitted in by some boats. To augment the fleet with vessels intended entirely for industrial fishing would be a step which needed careful study, and the investigations in progress will help to assess the possibilities.
On the question of the assistance which is given, I would point out that the oil and meal subsidy is in addition to the operating subsidy enjoyed by herring fishermen. Its purpose is to encourage landings sufficient to justify the human consumption market by giving fishermen a better price than they would other-
1006
wise get for a limited surplus. To make the quota arrangements more generous would have increased the general level of assistance, and the Government considered that this was unnecessary. It was, however, possible to increase the rate by 1s. per cran by making an adjustment elsewhere.
The final point which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, asked me was about statutory minimum prices. The White Fish Authority has said that while it does not propose to proceed with a United Kingdom minimum price scheme, it considers that a minimum price scheme applicable to Scotland and Northern Ireland only should be introduced. A scheme was submitted to Ministers for confirmation recently and is currently under consideration. I regret, therefore, that I cannot go into the merits of the proposals this afternoon, but an announcement on this subject will be made as soon as Ministers have made a decision.
LORD NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could I ask him whether he would answer my question? Does this mean that a scheme for England is still under consideration, or has it been dropped?
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I do not know whether a scheme for England has finally been dropped, but no scheme is being proceeded with at the present time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

THE CONTINENTAL SHELF: UNITED KINGDOM LICENSING AND DEVELOPMENT.
4.0 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I hope that it will be for the convenience of your Lordship if I now repeat a Statement on the Continental Shelf Licensing which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Power. I will use his own words:
"As the House knows, great success has been achieved in the first stages of exploration and development of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. In less than five years since the first batch of licences was issued, five major commercial discoveries have been made;

1007
natural gas is being used in quantity by the gas industry; and large supplies have been contracted for by the petrochemical industry. Already we can be confident of 4, 000 million cubic feet per day in the mid-'70s. This fine achievement will be of great value to the economy.
"Over the past year I have been considering the next stages in the exploration and development of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. My objective has been to realise the maximum benefit to the economy in the exploitation of these national resources.
"The two most important considerations are to maintain a continuing and vigorous effort on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf and to do this in a way which secures the maximum advantage for the economy in terms of the balance of payments and of low energy costs.
"The first objective can only be achieved by continuing to take advantage of the immense experience and resources of the oil industry. To achieve the second it is my intention that the nationalised industries and British companies should play a larger part in future.
"Large tracts of the North Sea and almost all the Irish Sea are still unexplored, and I have decided that the time has now come to invite applications for a limited number of blocks in both areas.
"In the North Sea the bulk of the territory to be offered will be in the North, since most of the blocks in the South were licensed in 1964 and 1965 and will not come up for reallocation before the end of 1970. The criteria by which I shall judge applications will be similar to those used in 1965, though with some added preference for groups involving the Gas Council and the National Coal Board and other British interests.
"Further North, between the West Coast of Scotland and the Outer Hebrides, I shall shortly be granting the Gas Council and British Petroleum a licence in the North Minch, for which they have jointly applied. This, being technically a landward area, comes under different arrangements from the North Sea and Irish Sea.
1008
"Finally, in order to clarify the present position of the Gas Council and to make sure that it is in a position to exploit to best advantage any oil it may find, I intend to seek powers by legislation for the Gas Council to search for, refine and market oil. Appropriate provisions will be included in the Bill on the re-organisation of the gas industry which I shall be presenting in the next session.
"To sum up: I shall be increasing the public stake in the continuing exploration of the Continental Shelf. In the Irish Sea, in particular, I envisage the Gas Council and N.C.B. being extensively involved, with the Gas Council, through its 'British Hydrocarbons' company, playing not only a larger but a more active role than hitherto. At the same time, I shall be offering private industry renewed opportunity to contribute to our national objective of rapid exploration of the resources of the Continental Shelf.
"Invitations to apply for licences will be published in the next two or three months.
"In the Irish Sea, I intend to make two changes. First, it will be a stringent criterion that applications for licences should provide for participation by the Gas Council or the National Coal Board, through direct partnership or options or other acceptable arrangements which the parties may agree between them. Secondly, I have informed the Gas Council that an application by them to act as operator in a limited area in the Irish Sea would be welcome to the Government so that the gas industry can gain the practical experience necessary to equip them to play an even more active role in the further development of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. For this purpose it is the Council's intention to operate through a wholly-owned 'British Hydrocarbons' company."
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for making this very important Statement. Personally, I welcome the fact that the Government are now making an effort to secure maximum advantage from the United Kingdom Continental

1009
Shelf for the economy in terms, as the noble Lord said, of the balance of payments and low energy costs. However, I should like to ask him one or two questions.
First, can the noble Lord give the Government's reasons why they are giving this added preference to groups involving the Gas Council and the National Coal Board? Can he say why the Government think that in the Irish Sea the Gas Council will be the best body to act as operator? Can he also tell us something of the proposed British Hydrocarbon company? Will this be another nationalised monopoly? Is this not going to be another case of using public capital in a high-risk area in which the international oil companies have much more experience? In regard to the West Coast of Scotland, can the noble Lord say whether the Gas Council or British Petroleum will be the dominant partner? Finally, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he thinks it right that the Gas Council should market oil, as opposed to gas. Surely they have never done this before. Is this not also much more a job for the oil companies?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I welcome this Statement, and I should perhaps declare an interest, because I am a director of a company which is participating in the North Sea exploration. I should like to ask the Government whether they feel that they are in their proposals really giving preference. "Preference" seems an odd word to use: our experience is that this sort of exploration costs a great deal of money, running into millions of pounds. This plan, therefore, should be looked at, first of all, as a commitment on the part of the Gas Council and the National Coal Board to spend a great deal of money, if they are going to do the job properly, with no guarantee that they will find gas or oil at the end of it. If they do, of course, it will be of benefit to the taxpayer and the country; but if they do not, it is a very big burden indeed.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, for the general welcome he has given to this Statement, and for the fact that this welcome was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Exploration and development of this kind, as the
1010
noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, is very expensive; and in fact some £200 million has been spent so far. So far as the publicly-owned bodies are concerned, they have already spent a considerable sum, and they are not without experience in these matters. So far they have spent £18 million—£7 million for exploration and £11 million for development—and with no further discoveries, combined expenditure under current licences will amount in the next eight to ten years to between £80 million and £95 million.. The cost of the additional exploration arising from action under the Statement that I have just made will, we envisage, be about £10 million spread over the next six years. But I think that the results so far achieved, some 4, 000 million cubic feet per day in the midseventies—
LORD BYERS: My Lords, that is by private enterprise firms.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord need be sensitive about this. The Statement does not in any way belittle the achievements of private enterprise firms; in fact it endorses them as one limb which is indispensable, with their immense expertise and drive.
I was trying to deal with the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Bess-borough, who asked first of all why the Government are giving added preferences to publicly owned bodies. It is because, while we want to use private expertise to the max mum benefit of the economy, we also feel that, with an increasing share given to publicly owned bodies, as their knowledge increases, the economy as a whole and the individual citizen as a whole:, will benefit more. This tendency is already increasing in this particular industry. For example, the nationalised industries' stake is now 11 per cent. The estimated share of the five commercial fields is that the nationalised industries will have 15 per cent., and the total British share will be 38 per cent. So it is already increasing.
The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, asked why we think that it is in the Irish Sea that the Gas Council are best fitted to take a preponderance in the matter. I would ask him to look again a: the Statement I made which does not envisage, as it were, a major dictating role for the Gas Council. The National Coal Board and private enterprise bodies will

1011
be under arrangements which are reasonable and acceptable to the Minister of Power. With regard to the British Hydrocarbon Company, I cannot at present add anything to what I have said. With reference to the use of public capital in a high-risk area, while we all know that only one well in ten produces any oil gas, and that only one well in 30 produces gas in commercial quantities, we are also aware that, with the knowledge and expertise which we have, and which is increasing, what we are doing now is extremely likely to produce satisfactory dividends for the country as a whole. So the use of public capital in this area is justified. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, also asked me whether the Gas Council or British Petroleum would be dominant in the North Minch area. This is a question that I cannot answer at this stage. My own understanding is that it will be a partnership between them, working together, with no suggestion of one dominating the other.
4.13 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend on his Statement. This Statement is contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale (as he now is), did in 1964 when he was Minister of Fuel and Power. He hastily gave all the preferences in the North Sea to private enterprise. I am pleased that the nationalised industries are now being considered, and I believe that the Government are entirely right in this issue.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his approval in this matter. I hope he will accept from me that while the Government think it right for an increasing share of future development to accrue to publicly owned undertakings, we nevertheless acknowledge the immense achievements of private industry, and their great knowledge, in this field. So in many ways we are at least without peer as a country, and I hope we can regard this great national success as something in which we can all share and take pride.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, if the noble Lord and the House will forgive me for speaking again may I say that although he gave me a very clear answer to my other questions there
1012
was one question which he did not answer. That was with regard to the Gas Council marketing oil, something which I think they have never done before. What is the position in regard to that? Is this the right solution?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl has appreciated that this is a reference to oil found by the Gas Council in the North Sea or the Irish Sea, and we are talking about refining and marketing that. In the view of the Government this is an activity in which it would be proper and helpful for the Gas Council to participate.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, on that point, am I right in understanding that the noble Lord is not in fact saying that the Gas Council will necessarily retail oil; that this is marketing in its widest sense of selling?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether any arrangements are being made with the Irish Republic for developments in the Irish Sea? Also, could he give any indication as to whether, in the explorations that are taking place in these new areas, there is any likelihood of anything other than oil and gas being found which might be of commercial advantage to the United Kingdom?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, one certainly cannot discount that last possibility. When you start digging you do not know what you are going to find. I have no precise knowledge on that point. With regard to the question about the Irish Republic, they will have rights in this matter, and these will be matters for negotiation between the two Governments. I cannot say anything about the precise details of such negotiations. As the noble Lord will appreciate, this is not a new matter, because we already have arrangements, for example, with the Isle of Man and the Northern Ireland Government. No doubt similar arrangements will be negotiated with the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not a fact that Her Majesty's Government are predominant shareholders in the British Petroleum Company, who have the most

1013
colossal knowledge of this development, as well as vast capital with which to undertake work on it? Would it not be much more in the national interest to entrust this extremely risky enterprise to the British Petroleum Company, rather than to bring in people who have no experience at all in this kind of risk venture?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl quite appreciated that I said that the British Petroleum Company and the Gas Council will be jointly participating in the development of the North Minch area, which is a landward area. I fully accept everything the noble Earl said about the knowledge, expertise and power of B.P. That apart, in so far as the exploration of the Continental Shelf is concerned, the Government treat and regard B.P. as they do any other company, and it would not be thought right to give B.P. a special advantage in that regard as compared with another company. In two or three months' time the areas or plots to be available will be advertised and it will be open to B.P., or any other company, to put in their schemes to the Minister, who will then be able to decide according to the criteria which were used in 1964 and 1965 to which companies or consortia the plots or areas should be allotted.

CARRIAGE BY AIR ACTS (APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1969
4.20 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Amendment) Order 1969, laid before the House on July 3, 1969, be approved. This Order amends the 1967 Order which, among other things, extends to air mail the principles of the Warsaw Convention as amended at The Hague and the Guadalajara Convention. When the 1967 Order was approved, it was of course the Postmaster General who enjoyed certain exemptions under the Order from liability in relation to the postal services. Although the Post Office Bill has not yet passed on to the Statute Book, both Houses have agreed that the new Post Office Board should take over re-
1014
sponsibilities from the Postmaster General in regard to postal services, and this Order ensures that the new Post Office should have the same exemption from liability as the Postmaster General. It does not vary the nature or extent of the immunity in any way.
Probably I ought to remind the House that when we considered the Post Office Bill the Opposition successfully moved an Amendment to Clause 29 (3). This Amendment extends to mail carriers generally the exemption from liability in respect of the carriage of mail enjoyed by the present Post Office. I have reason to believe that later this week it will be reported to the House that the Government accept this particular Amendment of the Opposition, but by virtue of this change in the Post Office Bill there may well be needed further amendment of the Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) Order 1967. That matter is a somewhat complicated one and will mean consultations with Government Departments and airlines who are carriers of mail. We are advised that despite the probable necessity for this further amendment, the present Order should be proceeded with in order to safeguard the position of the new Post Office. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Amendment) Order 1969, laid before the House on 3rd July 1969, be approved.—(Lord Beswick.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, in joining with the noble Lord in giving our support to this Order, may I thank him for the forecast of the acceptance of our Amendment. We shall expect no difficulty when he comes along with another amending order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLES (INTERNATIONAL CIRCULATION) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1969
4.22 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD rose to move, That the Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment) Order 1969, laid before the House on July 10, 1969, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order, which I commend to the House, amends an Order made in

1015
1957 and subsequently amended in 1962 and 1968 by extending the exemption from vehicle excise duty at present afforded to visiting foreign private and public passenger vehicles to visiting foreign goods vehicles. This extension of exemption from our vehicle excise duty will enable the United Kingdom now to accede to the United Nations 1956 Convention on the taxation of road vehicles engaged in international goods transport. This, in conjunction with bilateral agreements which we have concluded or are in the course of negotiating with other countries which are not themselves party to the Convention, will secure benefits for our own goods vehicles visiting those other countries. Taken together, the Convention countries and the bilateral countries represent virtually all those in which our road hauliers are interested.
I am sure the House will approve of this useful step towards facilitating international trade. It will avoid double taxation and the time-consuming formalities involved in the present need to pay vehicle taxes when entering foreign countries. The balance of advantage in these arrangements lies in our favour. More of our vehicles go abroad than foreign ones come here. Therefore, our hauliers will be saved more in foreign taxes than the relief from our vehicle excise duty which the Order will afford to foreign vehicles coming here.
In terms, the significant part of the Order is Article 6. This amends Article 5 of the present Order by removing from the exemptions already afforded to visiting vehicles a qualification that a goods vehicle is only exempt if it is used for non-commercial purposes. Article 3 of the Order revokes an Order made in 1968 which exempted goods vehicles from Sweden and Turkey because this exemption is now embraced in a wider one afforded by the terms of Article 6. Article 5 is a technical drafting Amendment which replaces out-of-date reference to customs regulations by reference to a current customs order. My Lords, I commend the Order to the House as a useful measure which will be of considerable benefit to our hauliers engaged in international trade. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Motor Vehicles (International Circulation) (Amendment)
1016
Order 1969, laid before the House on July 10, 1969, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for telling us the purpose of this Order, and may I give him my support for it, particularly as it so obviously benefits the general process of international trade, which is developing so favourably for us in Europe. I am sure that all noble Lords heard with interest and approval that more of our goods vehicles go abroad than goods vehicles from abroad come here; so this particular agreement not only is good for trade but in every way should be welcomed in exempting excise duty for goods vehicles coming here.
I wonder whether the noble Lord, with his considerable knowledge of transport matters, can tell us what happens with regard to the general laws here governing the operation of commercial vehicles—for instance, the 1968 Act with regard to special authorisations? If this is introduced, will the large-sized foreign vehicle travelling a distance over 100 miles in this country have to obtain a licence under Clause 71 of the 1968 Act? Similarly, with regard to drivers' hours. Are the drivers of the foreign vehicles subject to the regulations which will be made under the 1968 Act, and, if so, is the Ministry intending to bring our regulations into line with the Common Market regulations which are being hammered out? It would help to fill in the picture, although it is a little outside the Order, if the noble Lord would kindly deal with those points.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as I understand it, this Order deals merely with the excise tax. However, a foreign company bringing vehicles into this country will still require a carrier's licence, which the noble Lord himself is familiar with; and of course the various requirements—size of vehicle, safety factor, and I am certain, too, the hours of driving—are all governed within this general ambit of the carrier's licence. This Order merely exempts the company from this time-consuming operation of getting a licence every time a vehicle enters this country. This is very important with the tremendous development of what is called roll-on and roll-off of vehicles.

1017
My Lords, I hope that the House will therefore give this Order its approval.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

AUCTIONS (BIDDING AGREEMENTS) BILL
4.28 p.m.
Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 41 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of July 14), Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, before this Motion is accepted, may I, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, congratulate the noble Viscount on the expeditious way in which he has dealt with this Bill. The clear explanations that he gave at the opening stages have enabled it to go through the House with great speed, and I should like to express appreciation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very much obliged indeed for what the noble Baroness has said. I should like to thank her and the Department for the help they have given me.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS BILL
4.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered upon Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered upon Report.—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 26 [Detention of child or young person in place of safety]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) an appropriate court would fir d the condition mentioned in section l (2) (aa) of this Act satisfied in respect of him: or").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 22, after ("satisfied") insert ("or that an appropriate court would find the condition mentioned in section l (2) (aa) of this Act satisfied").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM: moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 32, line 16, leave out from ("he") to end of line 18 and insert ("ought to be further detained in his own interests or, in the case of an arrested child, because of the nature of the alleged offence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on his immediate promotion from the second Bench to the Front Bench because of his good work on the other Bill. So far as this Amendment is concerned, it is an Amendment to subsection (5) of Clause 26 which brings the wording into line with subsection (4) (b). The effect of the Amendment is to apply the same criteria for release or detention in both subsections. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Detention of Absentees]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 35, line 37, at end insert ("; or
(d) a person sent to a remand home, special reception centre or training school or committed to the care of a fit person under the Children and Young Persons Act 1968 c. 34 (Northern Ireland) 1968"). (N.I.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must ask your Lordships to consider with this Amendment Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and also Amendment No. 75 in the Sixth Schedule. The new paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of Clause 30 provides for the arrest in England, Wales or Scotland of absconders from Northern Ireland and replaces an existing power in Section 53 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 which is being

1019
repealed by this Bill. Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 are consequential. Amendment No. 32 (page 36, line 11) defines "magistrates' court" in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 33 defines "relevant Northern Ireland authority" for the purpose of subsection (1) and, since Clause 30 extends to Northern Ireland, provides that nothing in the clause authorises arrest in Northern Ireland or the taking of any proceedings there in the case of a person covered by subsection (1) (d); that is, a Northern Irish absconder. This is covered by Northern Ireland law. The Amendment to Schedule 6 (page 103, line 9) amends Section 65 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 by deleting from the list of provisions which are extended to Northern Ireland the reference to Section 53 (1) of the Act. I have already explained that this is being repealed and replaced by Clause 30.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think it will be for your Lordships' convenience if we take this Amendment, and then Amendments Nos. 29 to 33 together.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 31, 32 and 33.
Amendments moved—
Page 35, line 38, after ("the") insert ("local authority or the revelant Northern Ireland").
Page 35, line 39, leave out from second ("the") to ("he") in line 41 and insert ("remand home, special reception centre or training school at a time when he is not permitted by the local authority or the managers of the home or the relevant Northern Ireland authority to be absent from it").
Page 35, line 44, leave out ("home") and insert ("other place").
Page 36, line 11, at end insert—
("In the application of this subsection to Northern Ireland, 'magistrates' court' means a magistrates' court within the meaning of the Magistrates' Courts Act (Northern 1964 c. 21 Ireland) 1964.") (N.I.)
Page 36, line 23. at end insert (", and in that subsection the relevant Northern Ireland authority' means in the case of a person committed to the care of a fit person, the fit person, and in the case of a person sent to a remand home, special reception centre or training school, the person in charge of that home or centre or the managers of that school.
1020
(5) Nothing in this section authorises the arrest in Northern Ireland of, or the taking there of any proceedings in respect of, such a person as is mentioned in paragraph (d) of subsection (1) of this section.")—(Lord Stonham.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I would simply say that we welcome these Amendments as being a very sensible and obviously a necessary reciprocal arrangement with Northern Ireland. It is vital that there should be requisite power to transfer and deal with these young persons who come from these different countries with different jurisdictions, and this is only one group of Amendments that is being put into the Bill for this purpose. In my view they are quite necessary and quite right.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 41 [Control of premises used for, and conduct of, community homes]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendments No. 34, 35 and 36:
Page 46, line 43, leave out ("representing") and insert ("including representatives of").
Page 46, line 45, leave out ("including at least one person") and insert ("containing a majority of persons").
Page 47, line I, leave out ("he is") and insert ("they are").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, these Amendments are really on the same subject as the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, and other noble Lords probably realise. The Amendments relate to the question of the length of time that children in community homes are to be in accommodation which has the purpose of restricting their liberty. Noble Lords may remember that we had different Amendments down on this subject on the Committee stage, but having listened to and read what the noble Lord said we thought it was worth while returning to this subject under the regulations that are going to be made under Clause 41.
It is not easy to discuss sensibly what the precise provisions of these regulations are going to be until one sees them; nevertheless the framework is here in subsection (2) of Clause 41, and paragraph (c) of that subsection will require the approval of the Secretary of State for the use of this accommodation restricting the liberty of children, the regulations will impose other requirements as to the

1021
placing of a child in that sort of accommodation and will also require permission of the local authority or voluntary organisation in whose care the child is to be detained. I just want to be certain that I am getting this right: the permission of the local authority or voluntary organisation in whose care the child is would have to be obtained on each occasion before the child is put into this restricting accommodation.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, that is right.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Paragraph (e) then provides for reviews of that permission. I imagine that the intention is that if the child is to be kept in the restricted accommodation for any substantial length of time—and I shall be grateful to the noble Lord if he will tell us how frequent he thinks these reviews are likely to be, and what are the periods that will be covered by the reviews—then there is to be a committee.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Viscount referring to a normal review or a review in special security conditions?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know. I am referring to the reviews under paragraph (e), which are just called "reviews" in the Bill. There may be all sorts of complications in the regulations, but I have not had the advantage of seeing those regulations. I can imagine that there may be different circumstances in the two different types of confinement that the noble Lord was talking about. Perhaps he can explain it. The Committee will be composed of a number of different people. They will be mainly persons representing the local authority or the voluntary organisation in question, but they will include at least one person who is guaranteed independent—a statutory cross-bencher, as it were, in the terminology of your Lordships' House—unconnected with the authority, the organisation or the community home with restrictive accommodation in it. The Amendments change this round. They change the composition of the review committee so that while the local authority or the voluntary organisation concerned have representatives on the committee, the committee do not contain a majority of members of that local author-
1022
ity or voluntary organisation. Instead, the majority is to be the independent people who will not be connected with the local authority or the community home or the voluntary organisation.
The purpose of this is not in the least difficult to see. Just as the noble Lord moved an Amendment not very long ago—and indeed the Amendment was the cause why I did not move one earlier this afternoon to provide for an independent person to befriend the children whose parents never come to see them when they are in care—so we consider that it is worth discussing whether the review of the permission of the local authority or voluntary organisation to keep the child in this restrictive accommodation should not be dealt with primarily by people who are independent of the body whose permission is sought.
Of course it will be right that there shall be people on the Committee who can put the view of the local authority or the voluntary organisation, but it this review is going to be really worth while I would suggest to your Lordships that it would be sense to take out the "majority vote", as it were, of the very people who have, in the first place, given their permission to put the child into this restrictive care. There is no reason to suppose that the independent committee would act in any futile or irresponsible way and let these children out if it was thought that they were not fit to be let out. I should have thought they were just as capable of forming a sensible opinion on whether the review should result in the child's being taken out of secure conditions as would be the members of the local authority or voluntary organisation. It is another safeguard, rather on the lines the noble Lord has himself put in the Bill already, that we wish to see incorporated in these regulations. It is a suggestion which may have something to commend it.
I hope the noble Lord will explain a little more about the way in which these reviews work. I do not fully understand it, and it may be, therefore, that there is something wrong with the concept that occurs in these Amendments. Unless I am greatly mistaken in my understanding of this matter, there would not be anything very revolutionary in the idea of a largely independent committee to look

1023
at this particular matter of the renewed permission to keep the child in confinement. Those are the purposes of these Amendments, and I beg to move Amendments 34, '35 and 36.
4.42 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for so clearly setting out the points that were troubling him, and I appreciate that his purpose now (indeed, it has been the purpose of the Opposition at every stage of the Bill on this particular point) is to do everything possible to safeguard the liberty of the subject, to try to ensure that in no circumstances would a child be locked away and forgotten simply because some individual—I am making a hypothesis—in a local authority had set ideas, or something of that kind. We have now put Amendments in the Bill which effectively ensure that this cannot happen. That was the Amendment I moved, which ensures that every child, motherless or fatherless, or with ineffective mothers and fathers, shall have a friend with full power who can look after him (or her) in every sense of the word and will have power to take the child's case to court. I repeat: every child.
In the Amendments which the noble Viscount has moved and which we are now considering we are thinking of the special circumstances of children held—and it is for the Secretary of State to say whether or not they shall be so held—in secure conditions. There will be very few, or comparatively few, such children; but that does not mean there is any less reason for them to be safeguarded; in fact there is perhaps even more reason that we should take special care to ensure that their liberties are fully safeguarded. We have done so in the Bill which provides for the review every three months. That is why I interrupted the noble Viscount to ask him which he was then thinking of. In the context of the Amendments we are discussing, there will be provision, according to our present intention, for a review of the child's case every three months, whereas in other cases of a child in care the review will be every six months.
The exact way this system will work is still a matter for discussion with the local authority. But essentially, and written into the Bill, is the fact that in
1024
these cases of a child in security the review body must include one independent person. It does not mean that there may not be more than one. The effect of the noble Viscount's Amendments would be to place independent persons in a majority on the committee which is to review cases of children kept in secure conditions. The result, in practice, would be to remove from the responsible local authority—the authority that has been given power by the court—the power to take decisions about the accommodation of a child in its care, and to put this power in the hands of private individuals who, however well informed, however highly selected they may be, however right-minded they would be, could not possibly be cognisant of the whole area, of the whole facts, in the way the responsible local authority is cognisant. The participation of an independent person or persons in this is absolutely right. On that the Government agree, and it is in the Bill. But we cannot agree with the noble Viscount, as his Amendments would provide, that for practical purposes we should put independent persons in control. That is very much another thing, and in our view would not be acceptable.
I would also submit to the noble Viscount the point that the situation produced by the Amendments would be unworkable, because responsibilty for deciding whether or not a child should be given care and treatment in secure conditions should not be, as he would have it, in the hands of persons answerable to no one and without any responsibility for the consequences of their decision. The review body which is contemplated by subsection (1)(e) of Clause 41, the one he was speaking about, is expressed to be "representing the local authority". The Amendments would, as it were, destroy this relationship without putting anything in its place, because they merely provide that the local authority shall have minority representation on the review body. In thus seeking to keep the review body at arm's length from the local authority, the Amendments would make the status of the review body extremely obscure.
The Government accept that, as a safeguard in this very important sphere of questions of liberty, it is right and proper to require the local authority to

1025
hear an independent view, and this, as I say, we have provided. We have every confidence that local authorities will pay all possible regard to the welfare of the child in discharging their duties under the Bill, and I know the noble Viscount will agree with that. But we have provided safeguards against the risk, however slight it might be, and we think that this is sufficient. The three Amendments which we are now considering would place the local authority—and incidentally, the noble Viscount will appreciate, any court which made a care order—in an impossible situation of being in danger of being denied the means to carry out the orders of the court to care effectively for the child.
So, while we are all in complete agreement about the necessity for having an independent person or persons on the review, I feel that it would be quite wrong (and I hope the noble Viscount will accept this view) that these independent persons should be in a majority so that the local authority to whom responsibility has been given by the court, and the court itself, might be put in the position of having their efforts frustrated by people who, however estimable they might be, would in fact be responsible to no one but themselves.
4.50 p.m.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to clear up one point in my mind? I followed his arguments, and I understand his difficulties over the Amendments. I should like to know whether the independent person who will be present at this review is identical with the independent person who is to act in place of a parent or guardian, or whether this is a quite separate independent person?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the independent person who is now introduced into the Bill as a result of the suggestion made by the noble Baroness at an earlier stage is a different independent person from the one we are talking about here, who was already in the Bill and who related to security conditions. May I correct something which I said, or I am told I said, which was mistaken? I said that the Secretary of State has to agree to a child being held in secure accommodation. What I should have said, and what is
1026
correct, is that the decision about holding a child in secure accommodation is made by the local authority; the Secretary of State approves the accommodation.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, it may well be that before we reach the next stage of this Bill a certain length of time may elapse, and since the subject matter of this Amendment concerns the regulations that are to be made—which of course I have not seen—I wonder whether at some stage the noble Lord, as he often does, would allow me to talk to him on this matter with my noble friends.
The last thing we wish to do, of course, is to take away from the local authorities the power to carry out the care order. But I do not understand that to be the case. The child is in care anyway. The only question that arises here is whether the child, in addition to being in care, is also held in secure conditions. If he is taken out of secure conditions he is still in care, and therefore the decision of the committee does not discharge the court order or in any way conflict with the decision of the court to put him into care. Therefore the whole foundation of the noble Lord's argument, as I understood it, which was that the independent majority, as I suggest it should be on this committee, would have the effect of frustrating the court and the local authority, really goes. But it may be that I misunderstood him.
Perhaps the noble Lord will also be able at some stage to help us on this. I did not understand that there was to be a different committee every time a new case came up. What I thought the noble Lord was leading to was this: that if the child was in the care of a local authority and in a community home, then it must be the majority representatives of that local authority who would decide what was going to be done with that child. The community home, of course, may not as I understand it, necessarily be in the local authority's area. They may have to send the child from their own jurisdiction to a community home somewhere else.
On the other hand, if it is a voluntary organisation which has the care of the child under the court order, then it seems to me, from what the noble Lord has said, that there will have to be a majority of the members of the voluntary organisation on this committee instead of a

1027
majority of members of the local authority. We may therefore have rows of different committees with different majorities, according to the person or the authority or organisation into whose care the child has been given. If that is what is intended, it does not seem to be a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter, because we shall have large numbers of different decisions which it will not necessarily be possible to reconcile.
What I understood to be the sort of arrangement in mind was that there should be a committee on which the representatives of the local authorities and the voluntary organisations over an area would be in the majority, and that there would be on it also an independent person, or persons. Therefore, there would be a fairly wide-ranging committee, in terms of geography, including all the local authorities and voluntary organisations, which would deal with all these cases as they come up. If that is not so, the whole thing is a different state of affairs from what I had imagined, and I should have thought, quite dubious, because it must mean that we shall have a great number of different committees.
Each county or county borough—at any rate until we have Redcliffe-Maud implemented—being a children's authority, will have to have its own committee, and each voluntary body will have its own committee; and the wretched independent person will go rushing round from one committee to another, and the policy decisions may be quite different. If that is the sort of thing the noble Lord has in mind, I do not think that is satisfactory, and I should prefer to have an independent majority. This is the Report stage, of course, and we ought not to discuss these matters in more than one speech. But it seems to me that what is really needed is an explanation from the noble Lord, so that we can sit down quietly and consider exactly how this system is going to work; and then perhaps we can see whether or not there is something in what I have been saying.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as I listened to the noble Viscount I felt that he had stated my case quite accurately. But when it comes to the question of a number of review committees, of course there would not be a different committee for each child, but there would be a
1028
review committee for each authority. I do not know whether the noble Viscount is objecting to that, but obviously, for practical reasons there should be this one review committee for each authority.
With regard to the noble Viscount's suggestion in his Amendment, that the independent people should be in a majority on those review committees, this is something that I do not think we can accept. Suppose that a seriously disturbed child has committed a serious crime of violence and is kept in conditions of security; and suppose that he commits a serious offence when released from security by the review body. If the review body has a majority of volunteers—which could be the effect of adopting the noble Viscount's Amendment—who would then be responsible? It seems to me that the responsibility must rest with the local authority; and, if so, the local authority must be in the majority.
As the noble Viscount said, however, there will be some time before we reach the final stage of this Bill, and I shall be glad to do what we have done often before, to consult together. I will write to the noble Viscount. I will put it that way because in my experience when it appears that there stretches before one a long vista of time one finds that the time elapses and nothing has been done. In this way, I shall write to him quite soon at the beginning of that vista and we shall see what can be done to get the matter started.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think that would be the best thing to do, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 [Modification of duty of persons maintaining foster children to notify local authority]:
4.59 p.m.
Lord STONHAM Lord STONHAM moved Amendments Nos. 37 to 41:
Page 55, line 46, at end insert ("and been required by virtue of the following provisions of this section to give notice under subsection (5A) of this Section in respect of those premises.")
Page 56, line 28, leave out from ("words") to ("there") in line 29 and insert ("from 'the same' onwards")
Page 56, line 34, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections")
Page 56, line 35, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of the following subsection, '')
Page 46, line 42, at end insert—
("5B) A person need not give the notice required by the preceding subSection in consequence of his ceasing to maintain foster children at any premises if, at the time he so ceases, he intends within twenty-seven days again to maintain any of them as a foster child at those premises; but if he subsequently abandons that intention or the said period expires without his having given effect to it he shall give the said notice within forty-eight hours of that event.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that it will meet your Lordships' convenience if I discuss with these Amendments Nos. 80, 81, 82 and 83 in the Schedules. These are minor Amendments to Section 3 of the Children Act 1958. They meet a point raised by the Opposition in Committee in another place which the Government undertook to consider. It was pointed out in the other place that the words after the semi-colon in subsection (5) of Section 3 of the Children Act 1958 did not fit in with the rest of Section 3 as proposed to be amended. These Amendments accordingly delete these words, and replace them with a new subsection (5B). That is Amendment No. 41. The effect will be that a person who ceases to maintain foster children temporarily but expects to receive them back within 27 days will not be required to notify the local authority of this temporary absence, unless he abandons his intention to have the child or children back within that period, or the period expires before the children come back.
The Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association agree that this is a sensible provision. The Amendment of Clause 4 (2) (a) and (b) is consequential and provides that a person who has been relieved of the obligation to notify a child's removal is not required to notify his return. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord and to the Government for meeting this point. I have looked at these Amendments and they seem to provide a sensible administrative arrangement which will prevent difficulty. I welcome all these Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 67 [Orders and regulations etc.]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendments Nos. 42 to 44:
Page 66, line 42, leave out ("37 or 41 (5)") and insert ("(Transfers between England or Wales and Northern Ireland), 37 or 41 (5) or paragraph 21 or 22 of Schedule 4").
Page 67, line 3, at end insert ("(Transfers between England or Wales and the Channel Islands or Isle of Man)").
Page 67, line 4, after ("45") insert ("70 (1A)").
The noble Lord said: These Amendments are on the same point. They are all technical Amendments which have the effect of excluding from the general provision of Clause 67 that Orders should be made by Statutory Instrument and be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure, certain Orders in relation to which that provision would be inappropriate. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 45. The effect of this Amendment is that an order under sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 is not subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament.
Amendment moved—
Page 67, line 4, after ("71 (2)") insert ("or paragraph 11 (2) of Schedule 3").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 67, line 16, leave out from ("provision") to end of line 20.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46, and with this I should like to discuss Amendment No. 51. Amendment No. 51 enables an appointed day Order to contain such transitional provision as appears appropriate, having regard to the chronological order in which the provisions of the Bill and of the closely related provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 are brought into force. The Bill, as now drafted, takes account of the probable time-tables for the bringing into force of both its provisions and those of the 1968 Act, but the best possible crystal-gazing can be

1031
proved wrong by events, particularly where two Statutes are concerned. The Amendment guards against that contingency by enabling an unforeseen need for transitional provisions to be met by the inclusion of such provisions in an appointed day Order. The first Amendment is consequential on the second.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Interpretation and ancillary provisions]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47, and with it to move Amendment No. 48, which is the following subsection. These are both technical Amendments relating to the interpretation of references to enactments of the Northern Ireland Parliament.
Amendments moved—
Page 69, line 10, at beginning insert ("Subject to the following subsection,").
Page 69, line 12, at end insert—
("(5) Any reference in this Act to an enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by any Act of that Parliament, whether passed before or after this Act, and to any enactment of that Parliament for the time being in force which re-enacts the said enactment with or without modifications.").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 70 [Transitional provisions, minor amendments and repeals etc.]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49, and with it I should like to take the following Amendment, No. 50, which is a new subsection. Amendment No. 50, the new subsection, is a paving subsection for Part II of Schedule 4. This contains transitional provisions which will have effect between the coming into force of provisions of the Bill and the coming into force of some provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has also had a careful look at this one.
This is the first Amendment dealing with cross-Border provisions between England or Wales and Scotland, and it may be convenient if I say something about those provisions in general. At present the law in force in England and Scotland is similar, and the existing pro-
1032
visions for the transfer of approved school orders, probation orders, and supervision orders are comparatively simple. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 introduced an entirely new system in Scotland, but the relevant provisions of that Act are not yet in force, and they are not expected to be brought into force before about the end of next year, 1970. The Scottish Act abolishes the prosecution of children under 16 except on the authority of the Lord Advocate, and provides for children who commit offences, or who are broadly in situations equivalent to those referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d) of Clause 1 (2) of the Bill, to appear before children's hearings. The hearings have power to make supervision requirements which may require children to reside in residential establishments, and which are effective up to the age of 18. In other words, they would be materially different provisions from those for England and Wales.
The Social Work (Scotland) Act contained provisions for movement between the existing English system and the new Scottish system, and I shall later be moving Amendments to that Act, and to other Acts, which will make permanent provision for movement between the new English and the new Scottish systems. Because of the differences between those systems these provisions are inevitably much more complicated than the cross-Border provisions in existing law. This is the price which has to be paid for a different approach to the question, although with the same basic aims, North and South of the Border, and I am not making any kind of criticism at all.
There is a further complication. It is possible that the approved school order, probation orders and existing supervision orders will be abolished in England and Wales next year before the relevant parts of the Social Work (Scotland) Act come into force in Scotland. In that event we shall have care orders and new supervision orders in England and Wales, while approved school orders and probation orders for those under 17 remain in Scotland. It is therefore necessary during a brief transitional period to provide for movement between the new English and the old Scottish system, and that is what the provisions of Part II of the Fourth Schedule do. The new subsection provides that they shall have effect until such

1033
day as the Secretary of State may specify, which will be when they become unnecessary because of the coming into force of provisions of the Scottish Act, and shall then be deemed to have been repealed. I apologise for going into the subject at some length, but as it was the first one I thought it better to try to explain it.
Amendments moved—
Page 69, line 16, at end insert ("Part I of").
Page 69, line 17, at end insert—
("(1A) The transitional provisions set out in Part If of Schedule 4 to this Act shall have effect until such day as the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of this subsection (being the day on and after which those provisions will in his opinion be unnecessary in consequence of the coming into force of provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968) and shall be deemed to have been repealed on that day by an Act of Parliament passed after this Act.").—(Lord Stonham.)
VISCOUNT COLV1LLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord need apologise at all. It is very valuable that that explanation should have been given. The complication derives from the time-table which he has outlined. I am very glad that I did not have to draft any of these Amendments, and I am also extremely glad that this study will simply be a short-term matter which can soon be sent away into the limbo of things much best forgotten, when both of these Acts come into force. The matter is extremely complicated, and I am given more credit than is my due when the noble Lord says that I have studied it in detail. I have looked at it, I have come to the conclusion that it is transitional, and I am sure that it is right.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 71 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 51.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 40, at end insert—
("(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of section 67 (4) of this Act, an order under the foregoing subsection may make such transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in connection with the provisions brought into force by the order, including such adaptations of those provisions and of any other provisions of this Act then in force as appear to him appropriate for the purpose or in consequence of the operation
1034
of any provision of this Act before the coming into force of any other provision of this Act or of a provision of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.11 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 69, line 41, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) This subsection and the following provisions only of this Act extend to Scotland, that is to say—

(a) sections 10 (1) and (2), 30 (1), (3) and (4), 54 and 55 (1);

(b) paragraphs 18, 19, 21 and 22 of Schedule 4 and section 70 (1A) so far as it relates to those paragraphs;

(c) paragraphs 23A, 23B, 30, 32. 38A, 38B, 47A, 48 and 51 to 67 of Schedule 5 and section 70 (2) so far as it relates to those paragraphs;

(d) section 70 (3) and Schedule 6 so far as they relate to the Merchant 1894 c. 60. Shipping Act 1894, the Superannuation (Miscellaneous 1948 c. 33. Provisions) Act 1948, sections 10, 53, 55 and 59 of the Act of 1963, the Family Allowances Act 1965 1965 c. 53 and the Social Work (Scotland) 1968 c. 49. Act 1968".)

(4) This subsection and the following provisions only of this Act extend to Northern Ireland, that is to say—

(a) sections (Transfers between England or Wales and Northern Ireland) and 30;

(b) section 70 (2) and Schedule 5 so far as they relate to provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 c. 49. 1968 which extend to Northern Ireland; and

(c) section 70 (3) and Schedule 6 so far as they relate to section 83 of the Act of 1933 and sections 53 (1) and 65 (5) of the Act of 1963;

and section 30 (2) and (3) of this Act shall be treated for the purposes of section 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as if it had been passed before the day appointed for the said section 6 to come into operation.
(5) Section (Transfers between England or Wales and the Channel Islands or Isle of Man) of this Act and this subsection, and section 70 (3) of this Act and Schedule 6 to this Act so far as they relate to section 53 (1) of the Act of 1963, extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and section 30 (1) and (4) of this Act extends to the Channel Islands.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment relating to extent. In general, the provisions of the Bill have effect as part of the law of England and Wales only, but certain provisions of the Bill, of their very nature, must extend to Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. The Amendments so provide. The provisions of the Bill which extend beyond England and Wales in the main fall into the following four categories: first, provisions relating to newspaper reports of court proceedings—the same newspapers circulate both North and South of the Tweed; secondly, provisions relating to persons subject to English care orders and certain other orders who are "unlawfully at large"—an absconder does not necessarily remain within a particular jurisdiction and he very often gets out as soon as he can; thirdly, amendments of provisions which constitute a common code for England and Wales and for Scotland (for example, of Section 6 of the Children Act 1958); and, fourthly, "cross-border" provisions relating to the transfer of persons subject to specified orders between different parts of the British Isles.
The new subsection (4) provides, inter alia, that Clause 30 (2) and (3) shall extend to Northern Ireland. Under these provisions it will be possible for court proceedings to be taken in Northern Ireland where someone harbours or otherwise assists an absconder from some other part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland agree that the Imperial Parliament should so legislate, but the matters dealt with are not reserved matters within the meaning of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, which means that, but for this Bill, they would automatically be dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. It therefore seems right that the Northern Ireland Parliament should be competent to amend or repeal subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 30 in their application to Northern Ireland. The last four lines of the new subsection (4), which I propose should be inserted, secure that this will be so; they are drafted in common form. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Children's regional planning committees]:
5.14 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 73, line 8, at end insert—
("( ) The committee for a planning area which includes all or part of the Inner London Education Area shall include a person nominated by the Inner London Education Authority").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am moving this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ilford. It concerns the peculiar position of the Inner London Education Authority, which is not a local authority. It therefore appears to my noble friend and me that it cannot come within the category of "relevant authorities" mentioned in subsection (3) of Clause 33. Nevertheless, it is the education authority for the whole of Inner London and the 12 boroughs which are therein comprised, and it would be quite anomalous if there were a children's regional planning committee for that area, or any part of that area, which failed to include someone nominated by the Inner London Education Authority.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, is familiar with the difference in relationship between an education committee and a local authority and the Inner London Education Authority and the Greater London Council. It may be possible to secure the object of this Amendment by administrative means, without putting it into the Statute. I feel quite sure that my noble friend would be content if a firm assurance of that kind were given in your Lordships' House. I hope that what I have said will have made clear to the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that there is a point of substance here, and that by one means or another he will be able to meet it. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, on behalf of his noble friend Lord Ilford is identical with an Amendment which was moved by a member of the Opposition in Committee in another place and was by leave withdrawn after what were considered satisfactory Government assurances had been given. As I am sure that

1037
your Lordships would not want me to repeat the arguments all over again, I can only reiterate the assurance given by the Government that, in our view, it would be entirely appropriate, if the relevant authorities think fit, for the committee to include members whose concern is with the public education system. There are obviously many points at which the provision of facilities under the Bill, and under the Education Acts should be coordinated. Similarly, co-ordination will be required, for example, with facilities provided under the National Health Service, with facilities provided by voluntary effort and with housing schemes.
That is why the Schedule enables the relevant authorities to appoint members to the committee who are not members of a relevant authority and also enables members nominated by the relevant authorities to co-opt other members, provided that members of the relevant authority remain in a simple majority on the committee. I think that that is right, because responsibility for the care or supervision of the children belongs to the relevant authorities; therefore, responsibility for the composition of the committee which is to plan these facilities for the children must also be theirs. I hope the noble Lord will accept that the Amendment is not necessary and that it would be harmful and restrictive, and indeed improper, if it were accepted. At the same time, I assure him that exactly what he has in mind is what the Government hope will be achieved.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, in that situation I am not quite sure why it would be inappropriate or harmful to write these words into the Bill. However, the last words which the noble Lord spoke appear to me to have given the kind of assurance which I was hoping to receive, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 73, line 35, after ("which") insert ("on matters other than those so specified").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small point which I can explain briefly. Paragraph 3 (1) of Schedule 2 says:
"… the nominated members of the committee may co-opt other persons to serve as
1038
members of the committee, either generally or in relation only to such matters as may be specified by the nominated members".
That is perfectly reasonable. The nominated members may wish to co-opt some people with particular qualifications in one direction, and it may be appropriate that their power and influence in the committee should be limited to that particular field in which they are knowledgeable. But when we come to subparagraph (2) of paragraph 3 it appears that
"… the extent to which those persons"—
that is to say, the co-opted persons—
"shall be entitled to attend, speak and vote at meetings of the committee shall be such as may be determined by the nominated members".
My Amendment would make that read:
"… the extent to which on matters other than those so specified those persons shall be entitled to attend, speak and vote at meetings of the committee shall be such as may be determined by the nominated members"
The point of this Amendment, my Lords, is that where persons are co-opted to serve in relation to specified matters it is desirable that they should be fully entitled to attend, speak and vote at meetings of the committee on those matters, and that if they have been co-opted by the nominated members there should be no power in the nominated members, they having co-opted them in relation to a particular matter, then to determine that they cannot attend when that matter is being discussed. This is, in the first instance, a matter of courtesy to co-opted members, but it is more than courtesy. It is a matter of principle that when persons are co-opted to serve in relation to particular matters they should be free to attend, speak and vote on those matters, though maybe not on other matters. I beg to move.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as I understand it the effect of the Amendment would be to make the nominated members responsible for determining the rights of co-opted members to attend, speak and vote on matters other than those for which they have been co-opted. Indeed, the noble Lord read that and, if I heard him aright, said it. But if those words were inserted and the Amendments were made, it is not clear who would determine the rights of co-opted members to attend, speak and vote on matters for

1039
which they were co-opted; but some such control is vital in view of the committee's essential position as an instrument in the hands of the authorities responsible for the children.
My Lords, we had some discussion on this during Committee stage, and I gave an undertaking to look again at the provisions of Schedule 2 in so far as they relate to the powers of nominated members on the committee to limit the extent to which members who are co-opted for limited and specified purposes may attend, speak and vote at meetings of the planning committee. It was argued during our earlier discussion that these provisions are unprecedented and unnecessarily complicated, and that all that is required is to ensure that co-opted members have the right to attend, speak or vote on matters for which they have been co-opted. Subparagraph (2) of the third paragraph of Schedule 2 is no more than a piece of machinery to enable effect to be given to the principle enshrined in paragraph 4. That principle is that at all times the local authority members shall be the majority and so will be, as it were, "in the driving seat". The local authorities, of course, have ultimately to pay the bill, and they should be in the driving seat.
We envisage that the number of persons outside the local authority child care field who have something of value to contribute to the activities of planning committees is many times the number of persons who would be nominated members. There will be a vastly greater number who have something to contribute than the number of nominated members. The total number of co-opted members, therefore, may very well be, and is likely to be, several times the number of nominated members. It may be that it would be appropriate that different co-opted members should attend different meetings for different subjects, and also that different co-opted members should attend the same meeting for different items on the agenda. To preserve the controlling position of the nominated members at all times there must be some machinery for telling co-opted members to what extent they may attend particular meetings. This is not something which can be done in advance: it depends upon the committee's programme of work and the agenda for particular meetings. The machinery
1040
must therefore be in the hands of the nominated members. They have the duty, and the duty can be placed only in their hands, to (as it were) run the meeting, the agenda, the business, the arrangements, and this is what sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2 provides. Our thinking again on the subject since we last discussed it has served only to confirm the view that we should retain this sub-paragraph as it is and retain these arrangements.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I find that a most disappointing reply. It appears that policy is being laid down here by people who have no knowledge of the long experience which local government has obtained in the treatment and use of co-opted members. It appears that persons who have been co-opted as experts on different subjects are, in the Government's view, to be liable to be told by the nominated members that they may attend item No. 2, they must go out of the room for items Nos. 3 and 4, they can come back for item No. 5 and, perhaps, come back again for item No. 13. They may not be allowed to speak on any of these, still less to vote. This is not the best way to get good work from co-opted members. These sub-paragraphs seem to be written under the influence of a craven fear of co-opted members. I have served on many local authority committees with co-opted members, and I have always regarded them as partners.
I accept at once that it is reasonable to co-opt persons in relation to specified matters and not necessarily in relation to all the subjects which the committee will be considering. But to give, as the noble Lord insists that the Bill must give, the nominated members power to exclude from an item on the agenda which specifically concerns them co-opted persons who have been co-opted for that very purpose is to my mind an act of the greatest foolishness. We cannot have a quarrel at this late stage of the Bill over a matter of this kind. It would be far better if it was left to common sense, and if the spirit of partnership between nominated members and co-opted members were encouraged to the full by the Statute. I can only express the deepest regret that the Government have not been enlightened enough to accept this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Transitional provisions and savings]:
5.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendments Nos. 55 and 56.
Page 81, line 39, at end insert—

Part I
General")
Page 84, line 11, at end insert—
("(7A) References to an approved school order in this paragraph, except in subparagraph (2) (a), include references to an order of the competent authority under subsection (1) of section 83 of the Act of 1933 and such an order as is mentioned in subsection (3) of that section; and in relation to those orders this paragraph shall have effect as if for sub-paragraph (2) (a) there were substituted the following—

"(a) to be the subject of a care order made by a court in England on the date when the order for his detention in a school was made under the relevant law mentioned in section 83 of the Act of 1933 and committing him to the care of a local authority nominated in relation to him by the Secretary of State; and".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 together. Paragraph 7 (2) of Schedule 4 provides that, on the appointed day, persons under 19 subject to approved school orders shall be deemed to be subject to a care order made by the court which made the approved school order on the same day as that order. The new subparagraph inserted by Amendment 55 makes similar provision for those persons subject to orders made under Section 83 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. This section enables persons detailed in a school in Scotland or Northern Ireland to be transferred to an approved school in England, and persons subject to approved school orders made in the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man to be received into an approved school in England. All such persons are treated in like manner as persons subject to an approved school order made in England by a juvenile court, that is to say, they are deemed to be subject to an English care order. It really is a translation of a continuing type of sentence—if one may call it that; although it is no longer. It is a translation into the nearest similar thing that we shall have under the Bill so that a child will get the same kind of treatment as he would have got if he had been able to stay in the area where the sentence was passed.
So far as children from the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are concerned (there are only a few such children) it is not thought necessary to make special and complicated transitional provisions. Administrative arrangements will be made for the insular authority to reimburse the local authority for the cost of maintaining the child. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 57. This Amendment inserts a new paragraph 12 of Schedule 4. The paragraph contains transitional provisions on supervision orders made under the Children and Young Persons Acts 1933 to 1963 which are in force on the date when the new code of supervision in Clauses 11 to 19 comes into force.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 46, leave out paragraph 12 and insert—
("12.—(1) Where a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Acts 1933 to 1963 is in force on the date when this paragraph comes into force or where an order under section 52 of the Act of 1963 (whether made before, on or after that date) falls to be treated by virtue of subsection (3) of that section as a supervision order under the Act of 1933, the order and, in relation to the order, any enactment amended or repealed by this Act shall, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, have effect as if this Act had not been passed; and the order may be altered or revoked accordingly.
(2) A juvenile court before which the person to whom such a supervision order relates is brought after the date aforesaid in pursuance of subsection (1) of section 66 of the Act of 1933 shall not have power to make such an order as is mentioned in that subsection in respect of him but shall instead have power to revoke the supervision order and make a care order in respect of him on being satisfied that he is unlikely to receive the care or control he needs unless the court makes a care order; and section 6 (1) of the Act of 1963 shall not apply in a case where the court exercises its power under this sub-paragraph.
(3) Where such a supervision order contains a provision requiring residence in an institution which has become a community home, the provision shall be construed as requiring residence in the home; and in such a case any reference

1043
to an institution of the kind in question in rules under the Criminal 1948 c. 58. Justice Act 1948 providing for the making of payments to the body or person by whom the institution is managed shall be construed as a reference to the home.
(4) References to a supervision order in sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph include references to an order under the said section 52.")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should be grateful if your Lordships would consider with this Amendment No. 58, Amendments Nos. 59 and 73. These Amendments make transitional provisions in relation to Scotland in the period before the relevant provisions of the Social Work (Scotland) Act come into force. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 58 and 59.
Amendments moved—
Page 85, line 46, at end insert:
("15A. Nothing in paragraph 26 of Schedule 5 to this Act shall affect the operation of section 2 (4) of the Children Act 1958 in relation 1958 c. 65. to a supervision order made under the Children and Young Persons 1937 c. 37. (Scotland) Act 1937.")
Page 85, line 46, at end insert:
("15B. Nothing in Schedule 6 to this Act shall affect the operation of section 15 (3) of the Adoption 1958 c. 5 Act 1958 in relation to a fit person (7 & 8 order made under the Children Eliz. 2). and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.")
—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 60. These are temporary transitional provisions between the new English system and the existing Scottish system which will last for only a few months and which I foreshadowed and explained on an earlier Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 50, at end insert:

(Part II
Interim provisions pending commencement of provisions of Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 1968 c. 49.
17. Where a court in England or Wales by which a child or young person is found guilty of an offence is satisfied that he resides or will reside in Scotland, the court shall have power, without prejudice to its
1044
other powers and notwithstanding anything in section 7 (2) of this Act, to make a probation order in respect of him in accordance with sections 3 and 9 of the Criminal 1948 c. 58. Justice Act 1948.
18. In section 51 (1) of the Act of 1963, for the words "principal Act" there shall be substituted the words "Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in proceedings under section 1 of that Act."
19. In sections 51 (2) of the Act of 1963, for the words from "proposes" to "this Act" there shall be substituted", or a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 has been made in proceedings under section 1 of that Act, proposes to reside or is residing in Scotland" and for the words "specified in the supervision order" there shall be substituted the words "for which the supervision order would have continued in force if it had been allowed to continue in force until it ceased to have effect by the effluxion of time."
20. Where a juvenile court in England or Wales is satisfied that a person who has not attained the age of eighteen and in respect of whom a supervision order made by virtue of section 7 (7) (b) of this Act or section 7A (4) of the Criminal 1949 c. 94. Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 is in force resides or will reside in Scotland, the court may discharge the order and exercise the like powers to make a probation order in accordance with sections 3 and 9 of the Criminal 1948 c. 58. Justice Act 1948 in respect of him as if in the proceedings it had duly found him guilty of the offence in consequence of which the supervision order was made and section 7 (2) of this Act had not been passed: but a probation order made by virtue of this paragraph shall not continue in force after the date on which the discharged supervision order would have ceased to have effect by the effluxion of time.
21.—(1) Where it appears to the local authority to whose care a person is committed by a care order that his parent or guardian resides or will reside in Scotland and that it is appropriate to transfer him to the care of the managers of an approved school in Scotland, the authority shall make a report on the case to the Secretary of State: and thereupon the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, make an order transferring the person in question to the care of the managers of such a school.
(2) The provisions of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Acts 1937 to 1963 shall apply to an order

1045
made under this paragraph as if it were an approved school order made by a juvenile court in Scotland on the date on which the care order in question was originally made; but notwithstanding anything in section 75 of the said Act of 1937 such an order shall cease to have effect on the date when the care order in question would have ceased to have effect by the effluxion of time and the contributions to be made under section 94 of the said Act of 1937 in respect of the person to whom the order under this paragraph relates shall be made by the authority nominated for the purpose in the order under this paragraph, being the education authority within whose area it appears to the Secretary of State at the time that order is made that his parent or guardian resides or will reside.
(3) When a person is received into the care of the managers of an approved school in pursuance of an order under this paragraph, the care order in question shall cease to have effect.
22. If it appears to the Secretary 1937 c. 37. of State that the parent or guardian of a person who has not attained the age of nineteen and is the subject of an approved school order in force under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 or such other order as is mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (3) of section 87 of that Act resides or will reside in the area of a local authority in England or Wales, the Secretary of State may make an order committing that person to the care of that authority; and an order under this paragraph shall have effect as if it were a care order made on the date on which the approved school or other order was made, but as if sections 20 (2) and 21 (5) of this Act were omitted.")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments of enactments]:
5.37 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 86, line 22, at end insert—
("3A. In section 46 of the Act of 1933, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) If a notification that the 1957 c. 29. accused desires to plead guilty without appearing before the court is received by the clerk of a court in pursuance of section 1 of the Magistrates' Courts Act
1046
1957 and the court has no reason to believe that the accused is a child or young person, then, if he is a child or young person he shall be deemed to have attained the age of seventeen for the purposes of subsection (1) of this Section in its application to the proceedings in question.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61. Section 46 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 deals with the jurisdiction of juvenile courts and adult magistrates' courts to hear charges against children and young persons. In general, a charge against a young person can be dealt with only by a juvenile court. But where, in the course of proceedings, an adult court discovers that the accused is under the age of 17 it may, under proviso (c) to Section 46 (1), continue to deal with the case if it thinks fit. Certain young persons may plead guilty by post; the court has no means of finding out if they are under 17. Section 99 of the 1933 Act deals with the situation where a person brought before a court (these words are important) is discovered to be under the age of 17 only after the case has been disposed of. In such a case it secures that the decision of an adult court, reached in good faith, is not invalidated by the subsequent discovery that the accused was a young person.
The Magistrates' Courts Act 195? provides that persons charged with certain summary offences and summoned to appear before an adult magistrates' court may plead guilty by post. The Amendment deals with the situation where, owing to a mistake as to his age, a young person is summoned to appear before an adult magistrates' court and pleads guilty by post under the 1957 Act. Alternatively the adult court is unlikely to discover that the accused is, in fact, under the age of 17 and proviso (c) to Section 46 (1) of the 1933 Act is unlikely to be of any relevance. The court is likely, in good faith, to dispose of the case in the belief that the accused is over the age of 17. In that event, Section 99 of the 1933 Act is of no avail to prevent the magistrates' decision being invalidated by the subsequent discovery that the accused was a young person. Section 99 is in terms of persons brought before a court which just do not fit persons who have pleaded guilty by post.
The Amendment provides that in the case of a plea of guilty by post by a child or young person where the court has no reason to believe that the accused is under the age of 17 he shall be deemed to be over that age, with the result that the case can properly be dealt with by the court. The Amendment does not enable an adult court to deal with a young person who pleads guilty by post if it so happens that the court has some reason to believe that he is under the age of 17. It operates only where the court deals with the case, in good faith, on the footing that the accused is an adult.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, this seems a perfectly sensible addition to the Bill. I think your Lordships will welcome it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 90, line 7, at end insert—
("The Criminal Justice (Scotland) 1949 c.49. Act 1949
23A. In section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949, after the words 'that the offender' in subsection (1) and 'that the probationer' in subsection (2) there shall be inserted the words 'has attained the age of seventeen and',
23B. After section 7 of the said Act of 1949 there shall be inserted
Further provisions as to probation orders relating to persons residing or formerly residing in England
7A.—(1) Where the court by which a probation order is made under section 2 of this Act or subsection (6) of this Section is satisfied that the person to whom the order relates is under the age of seventeen and resides or will reside in England, subsection (2) of the said section 2 shall not apply to the order but the order shall name the petty sessions area in which that person resides or will reside and the court shall send notification of the order to the clerk to the justices for that area.
(2) Where a probation order has been made under section 2 of this Act or subsection (6) of this section and the court which made the order or the appropriate court is satisfied that the person to whom the order relates is under the age of seventeen and proposes to reside or is residing in England, the power of that court to amend the order
1048
under Schedule 2 to this Act shall include power, without summoning him and without his consent, to insert in the order the name of the petty sessions area aforesaid; and where the court exercises the power conferred on it by virtue of this subSection it shall send notification of the order to the clerk aforesaid.
(3) A court which sends a notification to a clerk in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section shall send to him with it three copies of the probation order in question and such other documents and information relating to the case as it considers likely to be of assistance to the juvenile court mentioned in the following subsection.
(4) It shall be the duty of the clerk to whom a notification is sent in pursuance of the foregoing provisions of this section to refer the notification to a juvenile court acting for the petty sessions area named in the order, and on such a reference the court—

(a) may make a supervision order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 in respect of a person to whom the notification relates; and

(b) if it does not make such an order, shall dismiss the case.

(5) A supervision order made by virtue of the foregoing subsection shall not include a requirement authorised by section 12 of the said Act of 1969 unless the supervised person is before the court when the supervision order is made, and in relation to a supervision order made by virtue of that subsection—

(a) section 15 of that Act shall have effect as if in subsection (5) paragraph (b) and the words following it were omitted; and

(b) section 17 (a) of that Act shall have effect as if the second reference to the supervision order were a reference to the probation order in consequence of which the supervision order is made;

and when a juvenile court disposes of a case referred to it in pursuance of the foregoing subsection, the probation order in consequence of which the reference was made shall cease to have effect.
(6) The court which, in pursuance of subsection (1) of section 73 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, 1968 c. 49. considers a case referred to it in consequence of a notification under paragraph (i) of that subsection (which relates to a case in which a person subject to a supervision order made by virtue of this section moves to Scotland)—

(a) may, if it is of opinion that the person to whom the notification relates should continue to

1049
be under supervision, make a probation order in respect of him for a period specified in the order; and

(b) if it does not make such an order, shall dismiss the case; and when the court disposes of a case in pursuance of this subsection the supervision order aforesaid shall cease to have effect.

(7) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in section 2 of this Act, a probation order made by virtue of the foregoing subsection which includes only requirements having the like effect as any requirement or provision of the supervision order to which the notification relates may be made without summoning the person and without his consent, and shall specify a period of supervision which shall expire not later than the date on which that supervision order would have ceased to have effect by the effluxion of time: and, except as aforesaid, Part I of this Act shall apply to that probation order.
(8) In this section "petty sessions area" has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1969.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the reason for this Amendment is that when Clause 7 (2) is brought into operation, probation orders will no longer be possible in England or Wales for those under 17. Under the Social Work (Scotland) Act probation orders will be possible from the age of 16 and, exceptionally, for those under that age who are prosecuted with the authority of the Lord Advocate. The existing law in Section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 deals with probation orders made by a Scottish court in relation to persons residing, or about to reside, in England or Wales and provides for notification of probation orders to the appropriate English authority. It is necessary to confine this provision to persons who have attained the age of 17 and the Amendment inserts a new paragraph 23 (A) which does that.
In the case of persons under 17 it is necessary to enable them to be made subject to a supervision order in England or Wales, and this is provided for in the new section that is to be inserted in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949 by my proposed new paragraph 23 (B). Subsections (1) to (5) of the new section deal with the move to England or Wales. In short, the Scottish court is
1050
empowered, where it is satisfied that the person under 17 resides or will reside in England or Wales, to make a probation order naming the petty sessions area in which the person will reside and is required to send notification of the order to be sent to the clerk of the justices; and he refers the notification to the juvenile court acting for the named petty sessions area. The juvenile court is empowered to make a supervision order under the Bill or to dismiss the case. Once the juvenile court takes action the Scottish probation order will cease to have effect. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with this Amendment, No. 63, I should like to discuss Nos. 64 and 65; and 78 and 79 in Schedule 7. These Amendments are primarily of a technical character, and you may feel that I can leave it at that. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If no noble Lord objects, I will take Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65 together.
Amendments moved—
Page 90, line 32, leave out ("from 'in the care of' to").
Page 90, line 33, leave out ("the subject of a").
Page 90, line 39, after ("1958") insert ("after the words 'that is to say' there shall be inserted the words '"approved school" has the same meaning as in the Children and Young Persons 1937c. 37. '(Scotland) Act 1937; ' and").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 66.
Amendment moved—
Page 91, line 44, leave out ("(a) to (c) of section 1 (3)") and insert ("(b) or (c) of section 7 (7)").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the new paragraph 38A and 38B which I propose should be inserted in Schedule 5 make Amendments to the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960 consequential on the substitution by the Bill of care orders in place of fit person orders. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 4, at end insert—
("The Mental Health (Scotland) 1960c. 61. Act 1960
38A. In section 10 (1)(a) of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960, for sub-paragraph (ii) there shall be substituted the following subparagraph:—

(ii) section 24 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (which relates to the powers and duties of local authorities in England and Wales with respect to persons committed to their care);

38B. In section 46 of the said Act of 1960, for paragraph (b) there shall be substituted the following paragraph:—

(b) section 24 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (which relates to the powers and duties of local authorities in England and Wales with respect to persons committed to their care);")—(Lord Stonham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.44 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 93, line 20, at end insert—
("47A. For subsection (3) of section 57 of the Act of 1963 there shall be substituted the following subsection—
(3) The said sections 39 and 49 shall extend to Scotland and the said sections 46 and 54 shall extend to England and Wales, but—

(a) references to a court in the said sections 39 and 49 shall not include a court in Scotland; and

(b) references to a court in the said sections 46 and 54 shall not include a court in England or Wales.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment to Section 57 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 which I am proposing should be inserted by this new paragraph 47A is consequential on the Amendments to Section 49 of the 1933 Act made by Clause 10. Your Lordships will recall that at present the law on restriction on publicity about proceedings in juvenile courts is the same on both sides of the Border. Section 57 of the 1963 Act deals with a cross-Border application by providing that in the English Act "court" shall include a Scottish court and that in the Scottish Act "court" shall include an English court. Now that the law will be different on the two sides of the Border
1052
this is no longer a practicable approach. The Amendment deals with the situation first by restricting the English enactment to the proceedings of the English court and the Scottish enactment to the proceedings of the Scottish court, and secondly, by providing that both sets of enactments shall be law throughout Great Britain. It will therefore be an offence for a Scottish newspaper to report something about English court proceedings if it is an offence for an English newspaper to do so, and vice versa. My Lords, that summary sounded very clear to me, and I hope that it is clear to your Lordships; but I am very much reminded of the story of the chap who objected to making porridge for one. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 94, line 9, at end insert—
51A.—(1) In section 72 of the said Act of 1968, after subsection (1) 1968 c. 49. there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) The juvenile court in England or Wales to which notification of a supervision requirement is sent under this section may make a supervision order in respect of the person to whom the notification relates but, notwithstanding anything in section 76 (1) of this Act, shall not include in the order a requirement authorised by section 12 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 unless that person is before the court when the supervision order is made; and in relation to a supervision order made by virtue of this subsection—-

(a) section 15 of that Act shall have effect as if subsection (2) were omitted; and

(b) section 17 of that Act shall have effect as if in paragraph (a) the references to three years and the date on which the order was originally made were respectively references to one year and the date on which the said notification was sent and as if in paragraph (ft) the words from "the order was" to "and" were omitted.

(2) In subsection (2) of that section, after the word "court" there shall be inserted the words "in Northern Ireland".
(3) In subsection (4) of that section for the words from "includes" to "1963" there shall be substituted the words", in relation to England and Wales, has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1969".
51B.—(1) In section 73 of the said Act of 1968, in subsection (1), after the word "reporter", in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the following words—

"(i) in the case of a supervision order made by virtue of section 7A (4) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1949, to notify the appropriate court and to transmit to that court all documents and certified copies of documents relating to the case which the reporter has received by virtue of section 76 of this Act;

(ii) in any other case", and at the end of that subsection there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

In this subsection "the appropriate court" means the sheriff having jurisdiction in the area in which the child proposes to reside or is residing or, where the original probation order was imposed by the High Court of Justiciary, that court.
(2) After subsection (1) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(1A) Where a court in England or Wales is satisfied that a child in respect of whom the court proposes to make a supervision order is residing or proposes to reside in Scotland the court may make the order notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) of section 18 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (which relates to residence of the supervised person in England or Wales); and where the court makes a supervision order by virtue of this subsection—

(a) the areas to be named in the order in pursuance of subsection (2) (a) of the said section 18 shall be those in which the court is sitting;

(b) the order may require the supervised person to comply with directions of the supervisor with respect to his departure to Scotland, and any such requirement shall, for the purposes of sections 15 and 16 of that Act (which relate to the variation and discharge of supervision orders), be deemed to be included in the order in pursuance of section 12 (2) of that Act; and

(c) the court shall send notification of the order as mentioned in paragraph (b) of the foregoing subsection and the provisions of that subsection relating to the duty of the reporter shall apply accordingly.

(3) In subsection (2) of that section for the word "subsection" there shall be substituted the words "provisions of this section."
51C. In section 74 of the said Act of 1968, after subsection (5) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
(6) An order under this section committing a child to the care of a local authority shall have effect as if it were a care order under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, but as if sections 20 (2) and 21 (5) of that Act and in section 20 (3) of that Act paragraph (a) and the words 'in any other case' in paragraph (b) were omitted.
51D.—(1) In section 75 of the said Act of 1968, in subsection (1) after the word "order" there shall be inserted the words "or an order under section 74 (3) of this Act relating to a training school".
(2) In subsection (2) of that section, for the words from "under", where it first occurs, to "1944"there shall be substituted the words "by a care order (other than an interim order) within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 or an order under section 74 (3) of this Act" and after the word "1947"there shall be inserted the words "or the said section 74 (3)".
(3) In subsection (3) of that section, after the words 'training school order" there shall be inserted the words "under the said section 74 (3) or".
51E. In section 76 (4) of the said Act of 1968, after the word "order" there shall be inserted the words "or order under section 74 (3) of this Act relating to a training school".
5IF. In section 94 (1) of the said Act of 1968, in the definition of "supervision order" after the word "1963" there shall be inserted the words "and includes a supervision order made under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.")
The noble Lord said: These Amendments to Schedule 5 amend Part VII of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. That Part of the Act deals with transfers between Scotland and England and Wales and Northern Ireland. So far as England and Wales are concerned, it provides for a transfer between the new system under the 1968 Act and the existing English system. It is now necessary to amend it to provide for transfer between the new Scottish system and the new English system. The general object is to make a child subject to the country to which he goes to the nearest equivalent to the order to which he was subject in the country which he leaves. I beg to move Amendment No. 69.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, when one sees an Amendment of

1055
this length at the end of the Report stage of a Bill, the only possible comment one can make is that the Statute Book would be a great deal shorter if only Scottish law could be assimilated into the English law or vice versa.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, may I make the further comment that, if we adopt the system of provinces referred to in the Maud Report, I hope that they will not each become so independent that they will each demand a Children and Young Persons Bill of their own.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.48 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendments Nos. 70 and 71.
Page 94, line 14, at end insert ("and 'Schedule 2, paragraphs 7 and 13'").
Line 25, at end insert—
("53A. In Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1968, in paragraph 10, to section 50 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 as substituted by that paragraph, there shall be added the following subsection—
(2) The provisions of the foregoing subsection so far as they relate to section 54 of this Act shall extend to England and Wales.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to take Amendments 70 and 71 together. They are consequential on the substitution of a new subsection for Section 57 (3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963. They concern paragraphs 7, 10 and 13 of Schedule 2 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Paragraph 7 concerns an Amendment to Section 46 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937. Paragraph 10 contains a reference to Section 54 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 and Section 49 of the Act of 1933. Paragraph 13 concerns an Amendment to Section 54 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937, and Section 57 (3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 as substituted by the Bill. I beg to move.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if no noble Lord objects I will put Amendments 70 and 71 together.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, as your Lordships might expect. Amendment No.
1056
72 is a minor drafting Amendment to paragraph 54 in Schedule 8 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The substitution of the word "or" for "and" is to correct an error, and the insertion of the phrase "where these words secondly occur" clarifies the position of the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 46, at end insert—
("61 A. In Schedule 8 to the said Act of 1968, in paragraph 54, for the word "and" where that word first occurs there shall be substituted the word "or" and after the words ""by virtue of"" there shall be inserted the words "where those words secondly occur".")—Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals]:
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 73.
Amendment moved—
Page 100, line 55, at end insert—
("In section 17, in the definition of 'fit person order' the words 'the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 or'").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 74. Your Lordships will be glad to know that this is purely a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 102, line 9. after ("home'") insert ("and")—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 75.
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 9, at end insert—
("In section 65 (5). the words 'and 53 (1)'") .—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 103, line 38, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 72 (2), the words 'of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 to 1963 or as the case may be', the word 'respectively' and the words 'to a supervision order within the meaning of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 or'.

1057
In section 73 (2), the word 'juvenile'.
In section 74, in subsection (3) the words 'in England or Wales or' and 'if he thinks fit' and the words from 'an approved' to 'be' where it first occurs, in subsection (4) the words from 'the Children' to 'be of', the words 'an approved school or' in the first, second and third places where they occur, the word 'of' and 'in' following those words in the first and third of those places respectively and the words 'section 71 of the said Act of 1933 or' and 'section 90 of the said Act of 1933 or under', and in subsection (5) the words 'of the Acts of 1933 to 1963 or as the case may be', the words 'of a local authority or as the case may be' and the words 'those Acts or'.
In section 75, in subsection (1) the words 'the Secretary of State or' and 'approved school or', and in subsection (3) the words 'approved school or'.
In section 76, in subsections (1) and (2) the word 'juvenile' wherever it occurs, and in subsection (4) the words 'approved school or' and 'of the approved school or'.
Section 77 (1) (6).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the repeals dealt with in this Amendment affect Part V of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and are consequential on the Amendments to that part of the Act already made by Amendments to Schedule 5. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 103, line 39, column 3, after ("18") insert (", 21").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment repeals paragraph 21 of the Eighth Schedule to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. That paragraph added a new subsection to Section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (which deals with the making of probation orders by English courts in relation to persons resident in Scotland) by providing that such an order should not be made in respect of a person who has not attained the age of 16. This is consequential on the fact that probation in Scotland for those under 16 would be exceptional. Now that probation orders are being abolished in England or Wales for persons of that age, the Amendment to the 1948 Act is no longer necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Sections 1 to 6 and 14 of the Children Act 1958 as amended]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 78.
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 49, leave out ("the subject of") and insert ("in the care of any person in compliance with").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79.
Amendment moved—
Page 105, line 1, after ("requirement") insert ("or by virtue of a fit person order or while he is in an approved school or is teemed for the purposes of the … Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, to be under the care of the managers of an approved school").—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 83:
Page 105, line 37, at end insert ("and been required by virtue of the following provisions of this section to give notice under subsection (5A) of this Section in respect of those premises.")
Page 106, line 9, leave out from ("removed") to the end of line 13.
Page 106, line 14, at beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of the following subsection").
Page 106, line 20, at end insert—
"(5B) A person need not give the notice required by the preceding subSection in consequence of his ceasing to maintain foster children at any premises if, at the time he so ceases, he intends within twenty-seven days again to maintain any of them as a foster child at those premises; but if he subsequently abandons that intention or the said period expires without his having given effect to it he shall give the said notice within forty-eight hours of that event.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 80, which we have already discussed, and Nos. 81, 82 and 83; and I should be grateful if they could be taken together. As I shell not be troubling your Lordships again, I would thank noble Lords very much for their help and co-operation over this Bill. I express my regret to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, because he was displeased with me over the last Amendment we discussed. My regret is deepened by the fact that I honestly and genuinely disagree with him, and think he is wrong; but it seems to me unfortunate that we were not lucky in coming together on that Amendment.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I would respond in the friendliest way to what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has said and congratulate him on having got this long Bill through Committee and Report stage. He will be aware that the Opposition are not in agreement with all the provisions of this Bill. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of good in it and we hope, I think I must say against hope, that it will be altogether successful. We appreciate that it cannot reach the Statute Book until after the Recess. We look forward to the possibility of further discussion in detail on Third Reading. But the noble Lord certainly deserves the congratulations of the whole House for the way he has conducted these debates.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EMPLOYER'S LIABILITY (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) BILL
5.56 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In putting before your Lordships' House this Bill, which has already been dealt with in another place, I would point out that it is in fairly simple terms. It deals with a situation which requires to be remedied for both employers and employees. There have been cases where employees who have been entitled to damages or compensation have been denied them because of the failure of their employers to meet the liability. On occasion this has even resulted in the employer himself going bankrupt, because he was not aware of the steps he ought to have taken to ensure that his business was run properly, both in his own interests and in the interests of his employees.
The Bill does something which is in some respects analogous to compulsory third party insurance in the case of motor cars. It helps the person concerned, who may not himself have sufficient resources to meet any possible liability—in this case, liability to his employee. Employees are carefully defined in the Bill, and there is also provision for the Department to make regulations covering classes of employees to be insured and to make exemptions from the necessity to insure, the general idea being that there should be some corporations who will not need
1060
to insure because of their size and resources and there will be others for whom insurance will be compulsory. I do not think I need say much more. All the interests concerned have been consulted and are satisfied with the provisions of the Bill.
There is one thing I might mention. During the passage of the Bill in another place some remarks, which had nothing whatever to do with the Bill, were made with regard to an insurance company. I should like to make it clear, so far as I am concerned in this House, that those remarks have nothing whatever to do with the Bill; and in so far as a distinguished and respected Member of your Lordships' House was mentioned, I certainly do not wish to be associated with those remarks. I hope that we may proceed with the Bill on the basis that those remarks had not been made at all. I shall certainly be happy if that line is taken in your Lordships' House. Beyond that, I would commend the Bill to your Lordships. I hope that we shall be able to give it a speedy passage and give to the people concerned the degree of protection they ought to have, without placing an undue burden on any particular employer.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Pargiter.)
6.0 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has put this Bill before your Lordships' House in a brief but informative way. I feel that I must look at it rather closely, but before doing so I welcome very much what he said in dissociating himself from the remarks that appear in the Official Report of another place on July 11, col. 1808. We all wish that these remarks had not been made, and I think that they are better forgotten.
This is a Private Members' Bill, but it is one of considerable importance. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, was not in a position to introduce it until so late in the Session. This is certainly not due to any fault of his, because the Bill was only passed through another place on July 11, and came here on July 14: and the fact is that it was only two days ago that it was put down on the Order Paper for Second Reading to-day.
It is an important Bill because it affects every person in the country who employs

1061
others in the course of carrying on a business: that includes all professional men, as well as all traders; it includes, churches and charities, as well as producers and distributors. It is important for that reason, and it is important also—and probably even more so—because it can affect any employee if circumstances should so arise. The Bill places on all employers a duty to do what responsible businessmen normally do as a matter of prudence, to put it no higher.
The noble Lord did not mention them, but there are exemptions. In the Bill as it stands, only local authorities other than parish councils, police authorities and industries or parts of industries under national ownership or control, and bodies corporate established by or under Act of Parliament, are excluded. This, I understand, is on the ground that there is no doubt about their ability to meet any liability of theirs to their employees. I think that in Committee one would like to look at some part of that, particularly in regard to the police.
On the other hand, the number of people likely to benefit from the Bill is not great. The number is made up of two elements. There are, first, those who obtain awards in the courts against their employers which their employers cannot meet—an element which the Government spokesman in another place described as "no more than a tiny handful a year"—and secondly, those who do not pursue in the courts what they consider to be a good claim because there seems to be no prospect of recovering any award that may be given: and that number is extremely difficult to quantify. Therefore, as the Government spokesman in another place said, the true size of the problem is unknown. Nevertheless, there is a problem, and means should be found to solve it.
I feel that there are real difficulties in the Bill. First of all, there is the difficulty of achieving its main object of making certain that not only will every employee be covered, but that the cover will be sufficient to ensure that he will receive any possible award that the court may make. The possibility is envisaged in the Bill that it may be necessary to lay down a maximum liability to be covered. So to that extent the full amount of an award might not be covered. There is also the possibility
1062
of fraud—somebody may apply for an insurance policy and make a false declaration. That is something that will have to be looked at very carefully. Then, again, there are many existing policies that can be invalidated by an Act or by, for example, the neglect by an employer of his statutory duty. It would seem that such policies would not be acceptable under the Bill, because employees must be covered under an approved policy—and this is almost the most important thing in the Bill—which is defined in Clause 1 (3) as:
"… a policy of insurance not subject to any conditions or exceptions prohibited for those purposes by regulation."
Before this Bill comes into force regulations will have to be made on that: point as well as on other points—and I count ten which have to cover regulations in the first four clauses. Before the regulations are made, as was said in another place, extensive consultations will have to take place. The Government do not seem to know whether it would be possible to deal with the question of invalidation at all.
Then there is the question of exemptions. It may be that some big, well-established undertakings carry this risk themselves, and the question arises whether they ought to be exempted. At the other end, it may be that after consideration and consultation the Government will decide to make regulations exempting certain kinds of occupation. If so, the regulations should obviously be made before the Bill comes into operation. It would be senseless, I suggest, to require people to take out insurance and then to exempt them. Equally, it may be found that almost every existing insurance policy will have to be re-negotiated, once it is decided what is mean by "an approved policy".
Then there is the question of enforcement and ensuring compliance. This has not yet been fully thought out, and a good deal of preparation and consultation is needed before regulations can be made to prescribe all the requirements mentioned in Clause 4 (2). Although it is a minor point, for my part I cannot see why it is necessary in subsection (2) (c) of Clause 4 to leave this to be prescribed by regulations. I should have thought that it would be perfectly simple to state in the Bill itself the persons to whom,

1063
and the circumstances in which, the policy should be shown. The obvious persons one has in mind are the trade union representatives, who are the people responsible for the welfare of their members, and I cannot see why this cannot be said in the Bill.
I think I have said enough to make it clear that there is a great deal of further preparation and consultation needed before this Bill can be brought into operation. Normally, the House would expect all this work to be done before a Bill is introduced into the House, but the circumstances of this Bill are most unusual. It is not unknown for the Government to give assistance, or even to adopt, a Private Member's Bill. But the Government decided to help with this Bill only after it had obtained an unopposed Second Reading without a debate. So this is the first Second Reading debate that this Bill has had. When the Committee stage started, no Government Amendments were available. They were then hastily prepared by a different Department—and I must say that this Department did a remarkably good job in a very short time. But the Department in question was not even the Department which is likely to be responsible for administering the Bill.
One must ask whether this is really the way to legislate on a matter that will affect nearly every employer in the country, and could affect any of their employees. It certainly means that we in this House have a special obligation to consider the Bill most carefully. There has certainly not been such an opportunity yet. For my part, I should have preferred the thinking to be done first by the Government, and the Bill to be introduced afterwards. I should have preferred to see it made quite plain in the Bill who was to be exempted and who was to be covered by the Bill. I should have preferred that it was made plain, or at least decided, what constituted an approved policy for the purposes of the Bill. I should have preferred that it should have already been decided how, and by whom, compliance with the Bill was to be achieved.
In short, my Lords, while I am in entire sympathy with the basic purpose and concept of the Bill, I am far from convinced that it is properly thought
1064
out and in the correct form. It is difficult to accept that it would not have been possible, with proper prior consideration, to draft this Bill in a different way, so as to avoid having these ten different classes of regulations in the first four clauses.
In those circumstances I feel bound to say that if the Bill is given a Second Reading it should not be taken that the House is doing anything more than signifying that it is right to require employers in appropriate cases to insure against liability for personal injury to employees. It is not necessarily approving the content of the Bill. It should plainly be examined very carefully, and it hardly seems likely that there will be an opportunity to do so in the remainder of the present Session. If that should prove to be the case, the work which has been done on this Bill will not have been wasted. Great credit is due to Mr. Watkins for introducing it and carrying it through the Commons and, above all, for getting the Government to start work on it. A great deal of work—as the Government spokesman said in another place—has still to be done and this can certainly go on, even if the Bill does not reach the Statute Book this Session. It may be, and I hope it will be, that a much better and more fully considered Bill will emerge as a result of these consultations.
6.11 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Pargiter, for introducing the Bill this evening in such a clear way. It has been stressed in the course of the Bill's passage through the Commons that this is a Private Member's Bill and not a Government measure, and I must reiterate that this evening. The Government have not assumed responsibility for the Bill. On the other hand, the Government appreciate that the Bill represents a good idea and they have given substantial help to the sponsor of the Bill in order to make it into a practicable piece of legislation. But the problem it deals with is a small one, and the Government would not feel justified in setting up a great deal of expensive administrative machinery merely to secure compliance with the terms of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has pointed out with his

1065
usual skill at examining a Bill closely, it has become very apparent that a great number of matters have to be dealt with before compulsion can be applied, and those matters must be the subject of consultation with the interests concerned. I have noted that two points on which there would obviously have to be careful examination during Committee stage would be the clauses dealing with exemption and certification. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has added others on definition and enforcement. Having said that, I should like to emphasise that the Government are willing to see the Bill moving through your Lordships' House.
6.13 p.m.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, I am grateful for the reception which the Bill has had, even though it was rather qualified by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but only in respect of a number of detailed matters which will obviously require consideration. I do not quarrel in the least with what he says about time being required to consider this matter. I would express the hope that there may be time to deal with these points before this House finally departs for the Summer Recess. Certainly during the Recess period some work could be done, and I hope it will be done. I appreciate the force of what has been said. It is admitted that it would be difficult to put everything in the Bill, and therefore some things have to be dealt with by regulation. I think there is a safeguard there, because a proper reading of the Bill shows that before a particular class of employer or particular employers can be dealt with, regulations have to be laid, and they are subject to annulment in either House. This is a good safeguard so far as the Bill is concerned.
1066
In regard to many detailed matters that we cannot possibly get into the Bill provisions will be provided for in regulations which may be dealt with at the appropriate time.
In those circumstances, I should have thought there would be adequate cover for those things which are implied in the Bill but which are not specifically stated. I welcome the admission that something has to be done. If this Bill does not deal with that point quite precisely, I hope that we shall be able to amend it—I am sure that we shall be able to do so with the co-operation of all concerned—in such a way that it commends itself to your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.