Lords Sitting of 28 January 1974

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

IMMIGRATION CONTROL: ASIANS FROM EAST AFRICA
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 what conclusions on immigration were reached during the visit of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, particularly as regards Asians from East Africa who hold British passports and the dependants and relatives of heads of family already settled in the United Kingdom.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, as my right honourable friend explained in the debate in another place on December 6, my honourable friend went to the subcontinent to examine at first hand various aspects of our immigration control. These
2
were particularly the procedures for ensuring that only genuine dependants are admitted and the scope for closer inter-Governmental co-operation in countering the evil trade in illegal immigration. He did not go to raise the question of the United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa. My right honourable friend is considering the conclusions to be drawn from the visit; I can say at this stage that we believe it to have been very useful.
My honourable friend was able to discuss these matters in a spirit of practical co-operation with the three Governments. He derived great benefit from being able to see at first hand the work of the entry clearance officers and to review with our representatives in the three countries some of the problems with which they have to deal.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that full reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that all of us support the efforts to prevent this abominable, profiteering racket in bringing illegal immigrants to this country and that we support what Mr. Lane has done in that respect? However, did he not take the opportunity, on his visit to India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, to deal with the problem of family division? Is the noble Viscount aware that, while a woman with her family may come to join her husband in this country, a man may not come to this country even though he has sent his wife and children in advance? When is this inhumanity to be ended?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am glad to hear the noble Lord's support on what I am sure we all agree is a dreadful evil about this illegal immigration. The answer to his second question is, Yes; in fact the point was raised. It is a fairly complicated one and I think the noble Lord is probably mainly interested in the Ugandan or Stateless husbands who have U.K.P.H. wives and families here. This point was raised with the Indian Minister by my honourable friend, who explained the situation in the same terms as he did in another place last December. That is, it is open to husbands whose wives are here to apply to the nearest British representative for an entry certificate, and any such applications will be very carefully considered in the light of all the individual circumstances, including compassionate ones. Furthermore, my honourable friend made sure that our representatives in Bombay, the place chiefly involved, fully understood the Government's policy and the procedure for prompt handling of these applications. But as to the general rule that husbands are not to be admitted on right of their wives, the situation is exactly the same as it was in 1969 when the previous Administration had to stop this particular practice.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, while it is open to these husbands to apply, will the noble Viscount say whether any priority will be given to the husbands who have been separated from their wives and children in this country since the exodus in October, 1972? Can he also confirm that his honourable friend visited, among other places, Islamabad? Has his honourable friend any suggestions to make for improvement of the procedures which, as the noble Viscount puts it, are designed to ensure that only genuine dependants are admitted—bearing in mind that some people are going to have to wait until 1975 before they are even interviewed for an entry certificate to join the rest of their families in the United Kingdom?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, we made a substantial gesture last February in allowing 300 of the Stateless or Uganda men into this country as part of our assistance to the United Nations Commissioner. I should have thought we have done quite a bit. I have
4
already said that applications will be considered. Certainly my honourable friend went to Islamabad. I know about the long delays, but this is a matter more properly addressed to my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which I believe has the matter to some extent in hand.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount whether Mr. David Lane explored the possibilities of stopping illegal immigration at the source—at the country from which they come—because it seems to me that that is a far better way than trying to stop it after the illegal immigrants have entered this country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, my Lords; as I said in my original Answer, that was exactly one of the main points which he went into.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm or deny that there are still some 80 families of Uganda Asians who are split between Britain and various Continental European countries, and a further number, thought to be between 300 and 500, who are split between Britain and India? The splitting arises because some members of the families do not hold British passports.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know the exact details of numbers. It is an extremely complicated matter because some of the husbands are Indian, some are Ugandan, and some are Stateless. Probably the Indian ones are in India. Where the Ugandan and Stateless ones are, I am afraid I cannot tell my noble friend in detail.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, can the noble Viscount confirm whether the orders of magnitude mentioned by the noble Lord who put the last supplementary question are approximately correct, or whether we are dealing with something much larger?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I would think they are approximately correct. What I have not seen are the figures for the Indian husbands.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, may I ask whether my noble friend is aware of

5
the very great concern in many parts of this House precisely because the Government's concession of last February has not dealt with the whole problem, which it appeased to deal with? Moreover, is he aware that, of the breadwinners who are separated from their families and who are in India, the majority, I am informed, are now destitute because they cannot get jobs in India?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is exactly why it is important to get these matters clear. In the first place, the gesture we made was a contribution to the solution of an international problem, not one solely to be dealt with by this country. We were dealing with Ugandan citizens or Stateless persons. Secondly, it is not correct to say that the breadwinners are destitute. I think there is some difficulty in getting certain jobs if one is not an Indian national, but a number of these breadwinners are Indian nationals and have no difficulty in getting jobs.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, in this connection is not one of the hardships that women suffer the difficulty of finding out what their position is? Is the Minister aware (though there is no reason why he should be) that I was speaking to the Home Office only this morning about a British-born subject who has worked here all her life, fallen in love with a Portuguese national living and working in France, and that the Home Office have said that they cannot possibly tell her whether or not, if she marries, he can come and live with her in this country?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I do not suppose they can do so over the telephone because these things tend to be extremely complicated. If the noble and learned Lord wishes to write to me or to my honourable friend on this subject I will certainly look at the case, but I do not think it has anything very much to do with my honourable friend's visit to India.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say, finally perhaps, whether the Government have a completely closed mind on this issue or whether they are still prepared to extend wholly the partial concession that they made to these people in February of last year?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I imagine that my noble friend is not speaking about the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, but about split families. I have said that applications will be considered if they are made to the nearest British representative.

HYDROCARBON LICENSING: POLICY REVIEW
2.45 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: 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 the review of policy in respect to the hydrocarbon licensing in the British sector of the North and Celtic Seas and the Western Approaches has been completed; and when a Statement can be expected.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR ENERGY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, as I told noble Lords on January 21, the Government are examining this whole issue at the present time and when they have come to conclusions I will report further to your Lordships.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, can not the noble Lord say something more definite than that?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I could, I would have done so, and I assure your Lordships that it is not because I am trying to withhold anything from you. As the noble Lord himself knows—because he has written to the newspapers about it and he has spoken in debates in this House on this subject—this is a very complicated issue; but we must get on as fast as we can.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that completely unsatisfactory answer may I ask him whether a year and a quarter is not enough for his Department to consider this issue?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord, for the third time running, that I am not yet ready to make a Statement.

HYDROCARBONS EXPLORATION: ANGLO-FRENCH TALKS
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any progress has yet been made in negotiations with France to delimit licensing areas for offshore exploration for hydrocarbons in the Celtic Sea and Western Approaches.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, no agreement has yet been reached.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that informative but disappointing reply, may I ask her whether she recognises that there is considerable urgency about this matter, not least in that it is easier to get agreement before finds have been made than afterwards? But can she confirm the point of view which she expressed in this House last summer, that if agreement could not be reached it might be necessary to insist on the median line?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords. We think the delimitation should be in accordance with the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, which lays down that the boundary—and I quote:
"shall be determined by agreement … in the absence of agreement, and unless another boundary line is justified by special crcumstances, the boundary is the median line".
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness evidently knows what the "Celtic Sea" means. Would she mind demarcating it to some of us who are more ignorant.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that it is the name given to that part of the sea which is bounded by the Irish Celts, the Welsh Celts and even, I understand, by the Cornish.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I, as the Vice-President of the Royal
8
Geographical Society, congratulate the noble Baroness.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

CONTINENTAL SHELF: EXPLORATION LICENSING
THE EARL, OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what discussions have taken place with Denmark to determine the British and Danish areas for licensing exploration of the Continental Shelf and Slope between the Faroe Islands and the British Isles.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: None, my Lords, because commercial exploitation in this area is not yet technically feasible.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would not the noble Baroness agree that in this area again the fact that the technical advance has not so far been sufficient to bring this matter into the realm of actual politics is all the more reason to try to get agreement before it does; and that agreement is always easier to reach before things are found rather than afterwards?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: Yes, my Lords.

SMALL AUTHORITIES LOTTERIES BILL [H.L.]
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to empower small authorities to raise funds by lottery and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Kinnoull.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

IMMIGRATION BILL [H.L.]
2.50 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Immigration Bill be now read a second time. We had a fairly exhaustive discussion on the identical Bill when I brought it before the House on June 29 last, so that it will only be necessary for me to summarise, briefly I hope, the background to this Bill and the reasons why I hope your Lordships will allow it a Second Reading this afternoon.
During the proceedings on the 1971 Act my noble friend Lord Wade moved an Amendment which provided that nothing in the Bill should take away any right enjoyed by a Commonwealth citizen who was ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom at the time the Bill came into force, and later the Government incorporated words, substantially to the same effect, in what are now Clauses 1, 2 and 5. The public, and in particular, the immigrants into this country, thought that in adding those words Parliament had safeguarded all the immigrants present in the United Kingdom on January 1, 1973, against any retrospective effects which might otherwise have followed from the 1971 Act. But we now find, as a result of the decision of the courts in the case of Azam and Others, that anyone who entered the country between March, 9, 1968, and January 1, 1973, without submitting himself to an examination by an immigration officer, even though he had become immune from prosecution through the passage of time, is now liable to be picked up on the warrant of an immigration officer, detained until the Home Secretary has decided on his case, and then may be removed back to whatever country the Home Office decides. The alleged illegal entrant has no opportunity of challenging the decision of the Home Secretary in a court of law.
I think I should re-emphasise, as I did on the last occasion, that this effect of the Act was by no means as obvious as the Home Secretary and his colleagues, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, have pretended. Neither the Court of Appeal nor the House of Lords reached a unanimous decision on the case I mentioned, and I suggest that most
10
laymen in the country would interpret the crucial words "in breach of the immigration laws" in Section 33(2) of the 1971 Act as meaning "liable to prosecution under the immigration laws". If that had been the meaning, once a person was no longer liable to prosecution under the 1971 Act he would have continued to have an immunity such as he enjoyed between March 9, 1968, and January 1, 1973. But once a person was no longer at risk of prosecution, he would have been "ordinarily resident", to use the 1971 Act words, and thus be immune from removal, as my noble friend Lord Wade intended. But as it is, in the concise words of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, he had an immunity which he has now lost. I am sorry that the noble Lord is no longer in his place; he was there a minute or two ago, but he made quite a long speech on Second Reading in introducing the Act. He may remember the French phrase "qui s'excuse s'accuse"; and it is clear that without having intended to do so, he misled the House and the country as to the effect of the 1971 Act at that time.
My Lords, I want to give the reasons for wishing to restore the immunity which was taken away by Parliament without realising what it was doing. First and foremost, it has always been a fixed principle that retrospective legislation should be enacted only for the most compelling reasons of national interest where a serious evil or injustice would otherwise occur. That must be an immeasurably stronger argument in considering a measure which in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, "affects the liberty of the subject by cutting down his basic Constitutional rights". I quote the opening words of the dissenting judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, in the House of Lords:
"It has been considered unjust that a Statute dealing with substantive rights should operate retrospectively".
That is what we are dealing with in this Bill.
The removal of a small number of people who entered Britain clandestinely over a period less than three years cannot be a matter of any great interest to the State, but if the Government say it is, they have a responsibility to bring the case and not simply rest on the unsupported assertion they have made that much harm

11
would be done to race relations in this country if a handful of illegal entrants were now permitted to remain here. That is in conflict with the opinion of all the experts who have expressed their opinion on this matter. They say it is the Government's obstinate stance which is doing grave damage to race relations. That is the unanimous decision of the British Council of Churches, the Community of Race Relations Unit, the Institute of Race Relations, the Community Relations Commission, the Race Relations Board, the Indian Workers' Association, the General Council for the Welfare of Immigrants, and every single one of the Community Relations officers and the Community Relations Councils who have written to me on the subject of this Bill. So in the face of all this evidence, I think it is impossible for the Government to deny that a serious evil has not been removed by the retrospective elements of the 1971 Act. On the contrary, a serious evil has been created directly by it.
My Lords, the most alarming consequence of having this provision on the Statute Book in the long term is that, as my noble friend Lord Foot put it on the last occasion, the Government have opened the door of retrospection, and the door may be pushed open much wider by future Governments which may not be so well disposed towards immigrants as the present Government. Where are we to draw the line? There is in this country a small but vociferous minority of out-and-out racists who say we should send all the immigrants back to where they come from, no matter what right of abode they may have acquired under our law. By the 1971 Act we have created a precedent which these people are certain to invoke as an argument for going much further. Once one has conceded this principle, there is no logical place at which it is possible to call a halt.
My Lords, even if these fears were groundless, it cannot be denied that to the immigrant communities they are real indeed, or that the way in which the 1971 Act is being enforced has added greatly to the feeling of insecurity and tension which was already apparent. On June 12 last, the Home Secretary gave an assurance that he was taking no new dramatic steps
12
to hunt out illegal entrants, and he followed that by a circular to chief constables a month later, pointing out the need to avoid any action which could be construed as harassment, in particular the practice of asking for passports in connection with minor offences.
But then, in a letter to me on December 7, the Minister of State, Mr. Mark Carlisle, said that the non-interference of the Home Office in the operational activities of police forces is not affected by the number of houses to be searched in the attempt to detect illegal entrants, or the number of persons who may be interviewed in the course of those operations; so we see that the assurances of the Home Secretary that no witch hunt would take place to search out illegal entrants is completely without value if the police are going to carry out large-scale raids, and to detain many people on suspicion, without preferring charges, simply because these people are unable to produce passports. What is worse, I think, is the disingenuousness of Mr. Carlisle's bald statement, because from inquiries at Scotland Yard by the Community Relations Commission after a particular incident that occurred in Whitfield Street when a number of houses occupied by Asian immigrants were searched, and numbers of people were taken into custody, it appears that the police were acting at the request of an immigration officer for whom, of course, the Home Office do have a direct responsibility.
In this particular case, the Chairman of the Community Relations Committee for Camden, Alderman Roger Jowell, has asked for an inquiry to be held, on the discrepancies between the eye witness accounts and what was said officially about the incident after on behalf of the police and the Home Office, but so far without results. I hope that ultimately the Home Secretary will agree to such a public inquiry, which perhaps should be held under Section 49 of the Police Act 1964, if no other machinery is available. I think it is essential, if the harm done by this episode is to be repaired, that all the facts should be established. I hope even now that the Home Office will agree to Alderman Jowell's proposals.
This is an illustration, and I use it, not because it is unique or exceptional, but rather in order to draw the attention of your Lordships to the fact that this sort

13
of thing is happening fairly widely. As a result of these searches, a substantial number of people are detained who are innocent of any offence except that they were unable to produce passports when requested to do so by the police officer. That is creating very great insecurity and tension among the immigrant community. I would just ask your Lordships how many of you, if a police officer requested you to produce your passport, could do so at a moment's notice or say where you kept it. I am sure you would be very angry indeed if a police officer were to take you into custody because you could not produce that passport at one moment's notice.
It is impossible to avoid the suspicion, if not the certainty, that large resources are being concentrated on the search for illegal entrants simply because they are black. When have the police ever carried out a swoop on Earl's Court to detect illegal entrants from Australia, those who might be here in breach of the immigration laws? Can you imagine the fury it would arouse if such an operation were ever carried out? The 1971 Act was racist in its intention and it is being used in a racist way, as some of us predicted at the time.
In general, with a Government that is unsympathetic to our views, and a large majority in your Lordships' House who probably agree with them, we can do very little to counteract the results. But whatever your attitude may be to the question of immigration at large, you surely will not allow the Government to get away with passing laws that go back in time, imposing the harsh penalty of removal on a few hundred people who, until the beginning of last year, were free of any threat of judicial proceedings or of removal. For the sake of such a tiny reduction of immigrant population of the United Kingdom, do not tolerate the enormous damage caused to race relations, the loss of trust in our institutions by over 1 million of our citizens, and the flagrant breach of a principle which is the sheet anchor of British liberty. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Avebury.)
3.2 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I warmly congratulate
14
the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on having introduced this measure this afternoon. Over ten years ago he and I were instrumental in setting up the Parliamentary Civil Liberties Group; he was the Secretary and I was the Chairman. Since that time I have agreed with the noble Lord on very many issues, and I have disagreed with him I think on no point concerning the liberty of the individual. I therefore welcome, almost without reservation, the Bill which he has introduced into your Lordships' House this afternoon. I say "almost without reservation" simply because I should have liked to introduce it myself.
This is, of course, a Private Member's Bill, and therefore there is no official Party line so far as the Opposition are concerned. Nevertheless, I hope that all of us in this House have one thing in common: that we believe that the health, indeed the very survival, of democracy depends upon respect for the rule of law. If one accepts that basic principle it is easier to put it into effect if the laws we pass command respect and do not simply elicit reluctant acceptance. I believe that that principle is the motivating force behind the Bill the noble Lord has introduced, and that is why, while expressing a purely personal point of view, I hope my noble friends and noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House will support the noble Lord in the Division Lobby, if Her Majesty's Government feel unable to accept the measure—a situation I hesitate to envisage, especially in view of the strong line taken last year by the British Council of Churches. I note with interest that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Birmingham, is to make his maiden speech this afternoon, and we await anxiously and with pleasant anticipation what he has to say.
I think few of us can have been happy, much less proud, when Parliament, and Governments of both major Parties, decided to limit what had previously been the virtually absolute right of Commonwealth citizens to come to what they then regarded—in spite of their own, in many cases, much older civilisations and cultures—as the Mother Country. But the more unhappy we were the more anxious we were to ensure that new legislation would involve no avoidable hardship. In that

15
we were clearly unsuccessful to a remarkable degree, as the noble Lord has so compellingly argued.
I do not for one moment question the decision of the Law Lords in June of last year, for legislators must never seem to be encroaching on the realms of the judiciary. But I believe that all of us who followed the debates on the 1971 Act will be surprised that the wording of that Act is capable of interpretation as introducing an element of retrospection. I should like to remind the House of what Mr. Maudling said in the Third Reading debate. He said:
"It is important to recognise that we have taken great care not to change to their detriment the position of people already accepted for settlement in this country. During the passage of the Bill it has been pointed out to me that this principle, which I mentioned in the beginning, has not been fully carried out, and I have amended the Bill and the Rules to ensure that it is carried out, for it is of the utmost importance that when we undertake that people already here will not be affected by the Bill, that undertaking should be carried out faithfully."—OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 17/6/71, col. 771.1
There was no equivocation whatsoever on that occasion on the part of the Home Secretary. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, pointed out, the result has been very different from the expectation. I have both affection and respect for Mr. Maudling, and I do not believe that he would have used those words if he had not been advised to do so by his advisers and by Parliamentary draftsmen.
Your Lordships will have noticed the comments of Lord Wilberforce and Lord Salmon in giving the reasons for their decisions in the case to which the noble Lord has referred. Lord Wilberforce said:
"The machinery which has been used in order to effect the detention of the appellants is set out in a complicated series of provisions in the Act of 1971."
I ask your Lordships to note this sentence:
"I regret that in a matter which affects directly so many individuals so labyrinthine a path requires to be followed".
And the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, said:
"I feel bound to express concern that the draftsmen of this Act should have chosen to achieve its retrospective effect through a labyrinth of verbiage which may well have been as perplexing to many of those who had to consider it in Parliament as it was to many of
16
those it has deprived of their constitutional rights."
Your Lordships' House cannot ignore the views of two noble and learned Lords expressed so strongly and I think so convincingly.
Having acquitted the Home Secretary himself of deliberately misleading the House, I must add that I personally find it difficult to believe that Parliamentary draftsmen themselves could have been so labyrinthine and so devious in their behaviour. I hope that I am right in believing that the whole thing was a monumental mistake, which Lord Avebury is giving Her Majesty's Government a chance to rectify to-day, without any loss of face on their part. But where the responsibility lies is surely not all that relevant, compared with the relevance of the injustice which has been done to what is admittedly quite a small number of people, perhaps ten thousand at the most, and the appalling sense of insecurity and inferiority which has been implanted in the minds of many hundreds of thousands of others who, in the view of the Guardian and the specialist bodies referred to by the noble Lord, will be living under what can fairly be described as pass laws unless we support Lord Avebury in the Lobby.
The position of these people—and in practice that means all coloured immigrants—has been described succinctly (and not, I believe, unfairly), in the letter addressed to your Lordships by the General Secretary of "Liberation", and particularly in the last paragraph of that letter. He writes:
"The enforcement of these retrospective aspects of the 1971 Act has resulted in the entire immigrant and black community living in fear. The Government has put out a dragnet to find those liable to deportation or removal. At labour exchanges, hospitals, Schools, even in the street, non-white people are told to present their passports to prove that they are 'legally' here. Those so-called 'illegal' immigrants who were legal until 1973 are subject to blackmail from employers, among others. The police have also been making general raids in immigrant areas …."
I ask your Lordships to try to put yourselves in the position of the black husband who goes with his wife to the hospital, and is asked to give proof that he is legally in this country. It is, I believe, an utterly intolerable situation. If we support the noble Lord we can say that we have relieved our whole immigrant

17
population of a load of fear, that we have discharged a moral obligation that I believe we have, and that we have done our duty to the Constitution of this land by asserting once again our traditional belief that all men are equal in the eyes of the law.
3.12 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM: My Lords, it might appear to your Lordships that I am asking for trouble rather than sympathy in presuming to address the House for the first time on a matter of some complexity and a matter about which opinions are likely, indeed certain, to be divided. But in this respect I can only ask for your forbearance. I speak as Bishop of a diocese which contains a large proportion of immigrants, and it has been my good fortune to meet quite a lot of them in one way or another, and for all I know some of them may have been illegal immigrants under the terms of the 1971 Immigration Act, or been made so by the definition (if that is not too strong a word, and personally I think it is), of what constitutes illegality.
"Illegal immigrant" is no doubt a very convenient term, but it can too easily obscure the fact that people so described are not just a type, or a mere classification. They are people, generally with more than their share of human problems but with the same pride in their families and the same sense of responsibility for their children's welfare. But I know very well that a great many of them are, as we have been reminded, living in fear—fear of arrest, fear of blackmail, fear that the new life that they have begun to build by otherwise perfectly legal means, and generally by very hard work, may be shattered and destroyed, and with it their hopes for the future, both for themselves and for their families. And in assessing their predicament, I suggest that we do well to remembered the saying:
"Judge no man until you have walked a mile in his moccasins"—
words which have their counterpart in Holy Writ.
I must declare that I have a personal interest in more than one respect. As a Bishop of the Established Church, with its tradition of pastoral responsibility for all who care to accept it, I regard myself as having no less concern for the immigrant
18
population in my diocese than for the indigenous population of Birmingham and that part of the Black Country which falls within my jurisdiction. And I have found a good deal of support for this view of my responsibility among Commonwealth immigrants, who are no less children of God than the rest of us, whatever their religion. And as a member of the General Synod of the Church of England, I willingly identified myself with the overwhelming majority which last July supported the motion proposed by my right reverend brother the Bishop of Bristol in these terms:
"That this Synod, deprecating the retrospective use of the powers contained in the Immigration Act 1971 for the summary removal of illegal immigrants and noting with concern the consequent uncertainty and fear arising within the immigrant community, welcomes the decision of the House of Lords to give a Second Reading to Lord Avebury's Bill to remove the retrospective elements in the Act, and urges H.M. Government to undertake amendment of the Act on these lines and in the meantime to reconsider its policy of not granting any general amnesty to those affected."
I should add that the Bishop of Bristol underlined that he did not want the word "amnesty" to be understood as implying softness. Amnesty was itself, he said, an act of law, and I interpret it in this sense myself. What is more, I have no doubt that just as illegal entry is not in any degree to be condoned, so too the lawful entry of immigrants into this country must be controlled and contained. But so far as illegal immigrants are concerned, I believe that many are more sinned against than sinning. Few of them would make the hazardous attempt to enter this country unlawfully were it not for the acute pressures of poverty and unemployment in their own countries—countries for which we have had a very long responsibility. Furthermore, they would not do this, or very few of them would do it, without the inducement and aid of those who make a handsome profit out of this deplorable trade. I am sure that all your Lordships indeed welcome the action recently taken by Her Majesty's Government to try to bring this process to an end by the imposition of stricter controls in the homelands from which would-be immigrants come without qualification for entry here.
I do not need to spell out to your Lordships the extent to which the 1971 Act differs from the Act of 1968 in respect of the penalties attaching to

19
illegal entry, and as a newcomer to this House I cannot speak with any first-hand knowledge of the impression which was given when the Immigration Bill was first debated. But there certainly seems to have been a great deal of doubt about what meaning was attached to the word "settled", and so much so that a number of Commonwealth immigrants, whose unlawful entry had been undetected for more than six months and who were therefore thinking themselves to be secure under the 1968 Act, went to the authorities and were told that no action would be taken against them. In fact, of course, no such immunity followed, and is now held to be excluded by the provisions of the Act.
I have tried to do my homework as a new boy, and one of the documents that I studied, realising it was no part of the law but was officially issued, was the Home Office booklet, Immigration Act 1971—A General Guide published in October. 1972. To the question, "Does it affect people already settled in the United Kingdom?", the answer given is:
"No. The Act provides that everyone settled in this country at its coming into force is to be treated as having been given indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom."
What is meant by "settled" is nowhere defined in this document, and is hard—or so it seems to me—to discover in the Act itself. For my part I found the Guide rather more illuminating than the Act, and I think that what was true for me would be far more true for the majority of immigrants, who could hardly be expected to understand the complexities of our legislature process, let alone the language in which they are conveyed.
The police force in my diocese is sufficiently occupied without having the extra obligation of seeking out immigrants who entered the country unlawfully before July, 1972. It would be foolish to pretend that there are no problems between the police and certain minority elements in the immigrant population. But undoubtedly one of the chief concerns of senior police officers is to build up good relations in a multi-racial community such as Birmingham. And this process has been put at risk by the retrospective elements of the 1971 Act which this Bill seeks to remove. Information obtained from the Community
20
Relations Office in Birmingham indicates that in the past six months in Birmingham alone some 50 suspected illegal immigrants have been detained, of whom 20 were subsequently released. The high proportion of persons mistakenly detained surely justifies the anxiety which is felt on this account among a far larger number of immigrants, as we have already been reminded.
I have been assured by respected members of the Asian community in this country that the process of raiding of houses and the arrest of people who may or may not come under the heading of illegal immigrants is going on in many areas and is making inter-community relationships very brittle and unpleasant as well as enlarging the scope for blackmail. If, under the law, such action continues it will undoubtedly do much harm in the field of race relations. If illegal immigrants who have been resident in this country for several years are to be sought out and sent back to their country of origin there will be much personal hardship, and potentially good and useful citizens will be lost to this country. There will also be a sense of injustice which will not be confined simply to them. And there is always the risk of some miscarriage of justice, since frightened men are rarely their own best advocates, and any appeal to the courts, as we have been reminded, can only be made after deportation.
I do not believe that if the Amendments provided in this Bill are enacted it will prove to be any sort of charter for further and unlimited illegal entry. But I do suggest that within the limits which are clearly defined in respect of people who are already resident here, it would go far to make good citizens out of fearful ones, with increased respect for the British spirit of fair play and the reasonable toleration of irregularities. And that, my Lords, is why I feel obliged to give the Bill my support, as I hope you will be persuaded to do.
3.21 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, it falls to my responsibility and privilege to be the first to welcome the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken to us and to congratulate him upon the substance of what he said, not only because it is an opportunity for an ecumenical gesture on my part but for a

21
much deeper reason. The speech, if I may say so without impudence, was well-informed, carefully prepared and, so far as I am concerned, a most persuasive utterance which I myself would have been very happy and proud to have spoken. In fact I would have done it if the right reverend Prelate had not already done it for me. Perhaps I may add, in my strong support of this small Bill, a number of angles or attitudes to it which might otherwise not receive sufficient emphasis.
It has been my experience, which may be shared by other Members of your Lordships' House, that within the last few years, at any rate between 1969 and 1971, there was a perceptible, though perhaps not an appreciable, improvement in the general situation in regard to immigration. I have certainly found it in the work to which I am committed, and it seems to me therefore the more deplorable, when there appeared to be a chance of an alleviation of some of the worst miseries endured by immigrants and a finer sense of justice pervading the environment in which they live in this country, that this particular Bill should have been made an Act, thereby very largely reversing this process. Instead of an increasing sense of integration, or at any rate cooperation and security, I testify to a very large increase in the perturbation and sense of insecurity of those who are our immigrant brothers and sisters.
It is for that reason that I look to this Bill anxiously and find that in principle it is almost impossible to read from it a clear and unmistakable comment. This is precisely what, having ploughed through much evidence, seems to me to demand clarification if the Bill is to be operative. Your Lordships have already heard to-day of the way in which different and contradictory interpretations of retrospection could be applied or should not be applied to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is asking for clarification of a matter which is at the moment unclear, and furthermore for clarification which will lend support to what I believe is the general impression of those who have supported this Bill, that in fact retrospection was not included in its provisions.
The second observation I want to make is that working in Camden there comes to my ear and to my knowledge evidence
22
of a kind of pass law atmosphere which is in grave danger of becoming much more widespread. Already your Lordships have been brought face to face with an intolerable evil—the sense of fear and insecurity, of not knowing when at any time you may be accosted by the law and required to produce evidence that you are entitled to be where you are and to be doing what you are doing. If this is to be the process whereby retrospective action on those illegal immigrants is to be continued, then I abominate it and I would invite your Lordships to do likewise. It is a thoroughly bad thing. I was sitting in a railway carriage the other day and a Pakistani asked if he could sit with me. I asked him why and he said, "Because there is a policeman on the train and I think he wants to see my passport; I have not got it with me and I wonder whether I shall be taken into custody". I do not know whether he was an immigrant illegally in this country or not, but he was a human being and I felt ashamed of a situation in which he should be put in such perturbation of spirit and in such real fear. I do not intend to be sentimental about this but it is a matter on which many of us feel very deeply.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham very properly dedicated his maiden speech to a concern for people as people, and he referred to the overwhelming decision of the Synod of the Anglican Church. When the Synod of the Anglican Church takes such a decision it should be treated with grave authority, but when the British Council of Churches comes to a similar conclusion I would suggest to your Lordships that it is almost a working model of infallibility, considering the divisions of churchmen which have prevailed for so long. This is an unmistakable comment by churchmen and it will be warmly supported by the Methodist Church and others. It is supported because there is something wrong about retrospective legislation by which people who have assumed that they were secure from the law, and have not committed any further offence, are made aware of their insecurity and are threatened with it.
There has of course been the answer made by well-meaning and, I have no

23
doubt, charitably minded Members of another place, and indeed the Minister, to the effect that there will be no harassment (in fact there has been harassment in Camden, and I can give chapter and verse for it); also that individual cases would be treated sympathetically and on their individual merits. My Lords, how can a government be so naïve as to think that this kind of thing will satisfy people who have come from countries where the provision of that kind of legislation, dependent on the whims and fancies of the legislators rather than on clearly defined laws, has brought them into a continual sense of insecurity. I wonder whether I may be impertinent and ask how many of your Lordships have been in any continuous or long-term contacts with such immigrant families. They are almost constitutionally unable to frame in precise language what they believe to be the law, but are most anxious that they should have a law which is omniscient, in the sense that it does not depend on the vagaries of an individual. Once you introduce the idea that if an immigrant is to get justice it is not so much what he should know but whom he should know, then you have introduced, I think, one of the most undesirable elements into the administration of any civilised democratic country.
Finally, my Lords, I strongly support this Bill because it will give a measure of happiness and security to a group of people many of whom have already established themselves in the community in which they live. Indeed, if the situation has been improving, that is not I suppose because of the operation of the law of the expulsive power of a new affliction; it is not because we are in other troubles that we have forgotten our immigrant troubles: it is surely because many more immigrants have shown themselves to be citizens of the community in which they have taken up their residence and have nailed once and for all the lie that they are an economic danger to those who lived here in the first instance. They are nothing of the sort. They have contributed and wish to make their contribution in the future. If they are harassed by the kind of law which is imprecise, which is capable of many different interpretations, which has been interpreted as retrospective, and which puts them in jeopardy, I warmly
24
ask your Lordships to support this Bill which will go some way to put the matter right.
3.31 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I am afraid that, judging by the list of speakers, I shall be the only one who is going to say to-day that I sincerely hope that your Lordships will not give this Bill a second reading. It is the fashion nowadays to call "racialists" people who oppose Bills of this kind. I am not a racialist. I have the greatest respect for good, law-abiding and civilised citizens of any colour under the sun. Many of your Lordships of course will remember the late Lord Constantine. He was an example of what I would call a very fine man and everything that a British citizen should be. But, it is an unfortunate fact that not all those who enter this country to take up residence here are of that type. The law after all is the law and anybody coming here permanently to live must be prepared to obey it.
Many noble Lords to-day have spoken about the retrospective nature of the 1971 Act. It is retrospective in only one sense, in that it introduces a new penalty. It is not retrospective in making some act illegal which was legal at the time it was committed. Those who entered the country illegally at that time knew perfectly well, or should have been instructed, that they were doing so. What would be thought of an Act if it was to say to somebody who had broken into a bank eight years ago, or something like that, "Well, you have been extraordinarily clever. You have managed to evade the police up to now. Well done. Very good. We will forget it". Is that any attitude to take towards the breaking of the law? I cannot think that it is.
There is another point. Those who are so anxious to protect the coloured immigrants are sometimes apt to forget that our own native white population also has its rights. Many people have spoken about the rights of the individual. What about the rights of the white individual? Many of their lives have been made extremely difficult by the tremendous influx of coloured immigrants from abroad. There are cases where the more primitive coloured population has made areas so intolerable that the white population has had to move out altogether. I am not saying for one moment that those immigrants who entered the country legally and

25
who are working as law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to stay here. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, who said that thousands of immigrants other than the illegal ones, feel very anxious that they might suffer the same fate. They have no need to fear. If you have done nothing wrong there is no need to fear.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, that is exactly the point of which we are complaining. Because of the retrospective provisions of the 1971 Act coloured citizens who have done nothing wrong whatsoever are nevertheless liable to be stopped at any time by the police and asked to produce proof of identity. That I regard as wholly unacceptable.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I do not know that I find it so unacceptable. I dare say that if I were driving a car I might be stopped by the police and asked to produce my licence. Would that be so very unacceptable?
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him again, may I say that he would not be taken into custody if he did not have his licence with him. However if the immigrant cannot prove his identity to the satisfaction of the police he can be taken straight to the police station.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I think it highly likely that I should be taken into custody if I did not have my licence with me, or at any rate my insurance. But let that go. There is one final point to which I should like to refer and that is the very vexed question of the separation of families. I agree that this is a problem and it is something which, when possible, ought to be avoided. How one is going to avoid it I cannot see, but there is no doubt that families should not be disunited either by emigrating or by being repatriated. Therefore I sincerely hope that some solution will be found for these families.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: What a horrid man!
3.37 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I intervene to support the Second Reading of this Bill introduced by the noble
26
Lord, Lord Avebury, but first I have the pleasure of congratulating the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Birmingham, on his maiden speech. If anyone knows about the conditions of immigrants it must be the Lord Bishop of Birmingham.
To refresh my memory, my Lords, I read the debate of June 29, 1973 in this House on the 1971 Immigration Act. Not being a lawyer, I am wary of trespassing on lawyers' territory; but re-reading the debate and noting, the differences in legal interpretation of the 1971 Act, I felt that this Bill could have been drafted by Lewis Carroll of Alice in Wonderland fame. To illustrate this, when I heard the Government speeches in June 1973 on the definitions and distinctions between words and phrases like "settled" and "ordinarily resident" they reminded me of Humpty Dumpty speaking to Alice and saying
"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less".
The Government did not say what they meant clearly and unambiguously in 1971, but in June 1973 the Government meant what they said, and retrospective legislation became law. In human terms, this means that there is no security for many imigrants who were given immunity under the 1968 Act.
All affluent countries are going through very difficult times, and the oil embargo of the Arab countries has struck them like a torpedo. Their sense of security has been undermined and they have had a real taste of insecurity. This should give them some idea of what the 1971 Act has done to the immigrant population, both legal and illegal, in this country. I will not repeat the legal arguments, but from the British Council of Churches downwards every organisation dealing with community relations is at one in pleading for measures to reassure immigrants about this retrospective legislation. I do not condone illegal entry, and I was delighted with the reply to me, of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that Mr. David Lane, the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, had on his agenda the possibility of stopping illegal immigration at the country of origin.
We live in a very strange world, where men have always gambled, by fair means or by foul, for a better chance in life; and, after all, the British Empire was

27
built on such mixed ideals. After the shock therapy of the oil embargo, what lesson have we to learn? Do the people of the advanced industrial countries believe that their standard of living can be raised without the help of people in the less developed countries? We have only to glance around the countries of the world to find the answer. In fact, the immigrant population contribute to the mutual benefit of both the indigenous population and themselves. There is little doubt that in recent years harassment of immigrants by the police has increased and ironically it is the people who profit from illegal immigration who go scot-free. Every speaker has stressed that under the 1971 Act a number of immigrants are open to exploitation and even blackmail.
I support the Second Reading of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because it takes the toxic element of retrospection out of the 1971 Act. Any Government have power to control the number of immigrants entering their country, without appeasing racial prejudice or extending arbitrary powers which threaten civil liberties; but stopping up a loophole is no excuse for creating fear and insecurity among any of our immigrant people. As I said, these are hard times and people look for scapegoats when tensions, both social and economic, are increased and exacerbated. Immigrants are the No. 1 scapegoats, whether they are black, brown or yellow, and when these are exhausted there are always the Jews. By giving this Bill a Second Reading in this House we are in a good position to help remove this retrospective legislation—something which I believe would be in the interests of the prosperity both of our own people and of the immigrants who are here.
3.45 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I begin as others have done by thanking the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham for his speech this afternoon. I speak as a Humanist, and yet I recognise that on very many issues, both domestic and international, he and the Church are speaking in the real spirit of the humanity and ethics in which they believe. This has been a remarkable debate. Every speech has been in favour of the Second Reading of the Bill, and
28
I include the speech of the noble Lord Somers. I have no doubt about his sincerity and depth of feeling, but I am sure that the great majority of those who listened to his arguments against the Bill felt that, in terms of modern day realities, he was in effect urging that the House should accept it.
I should first like to make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government. This House has an extraordinary character, because it so often reaches decisions which are independent and which are seeking the truth, rather than expressing the point of view of one Party or the other. I have no doubt at all that if a vote were taken tonight among those who have listened to this debate, there would be an overwhelming majority in favour of the Bill which my noble friend, Lord Avebury, has introduced. That is the spirit in which I want to make my appeal to the Government.
I was a continuous critic of the 1971 Act, during its passage through this House, as indeed I was of the 1968 Act, but during the discussion on it I accepted the view put forward from the Government Benches that it was not retrospective. We had it in another place, in the most definite terms from Mr. Maudling, who happens to be my Member of Parliament. We had it in this House, with a sincerity which we all accepted, because we knew him so well, from the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that it was not retrospective. We had it in the most clear terms in the statement of Government policy which was issued to all those who wrote to the Government on the matter. We also had it in a statement from the Conservative Central Office which has been quoted from the other side of the House.
I believe that the Government did not wish the Act to be retrospective. If that was in fact their view how can they possibly vote against the Bill which my noble friend Lord Avebury has introduced today? That the Act is retrospective, despite the declarations about it, has been clearly shown by the judgment of the House of Lords in the cases of Azam and Kehra. The noble and learned Lords themselves indicated that if those cases had come under the previous Act of 1968, those people would have been innocent of the charge against them, and that it was only because of the

29
1971 Act that the charge against them could be proved. It was at that moment that it became clear that the Act was retrospective.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord ought to remember that that was not a criminal matter; it was a habeas corpus hearing. The case which came to this House was not a criminal prosecution and there was no charge; it was an application for habeas corpus.
LORD BROCKWAY: That I appreciate, my Lords.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord was talking of charges.
LORD BROCKWAY: I am sorry, my Lords. I am not a lawyer, and I do not quite understand the significance of the difference between a charge and being brought before the court. But what the noble Viscount has said makes no difference whatsoever to my argument that undoubtedly that judgment made this Act retrospective despite the fact that Her Majesty's Government, when the 1971 Bill was being passed through this House, denied again and again that it was retrospective. In view of that fact, I want to make a very sincere appeal to Her Majesty's Government not to oppose this Bill but again to reveal their sincerity by accepting it, for it seeks only to apply the declarations which they themselves made when the Bill was before your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I want to carry that appeal to Her Majesty's Government further, to the Members on the opposite Benches and to the Members on the Cross-Benches, who, because they are present, at least can hear what I am saying. They have listened to this debate. Can they have any doubt at all on which side right is? If they have their doubts, if, indeed, they feel that we have made a convincing case, I ask them, in the spirit of this House, which has so often been shown on measures of this kind, to vote in favour of their conclusions despite what efforts may be made by Party officials to guide them in another way.
My Lords, I have spoken long about this subject because I want my appeal to be considered. I shall therefore be
30
brief in the other references which I make. Again when the 1971 Bill was being discussed in this House I was deeply impressed by the assurances of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, that there would be no witch hunt. What has happened in Camden, in Tower Hamlets, and even in Westminster, has been referred to. I have some knowledge of those events. A block of flats was surrounded by police and a sergeant and two constables went to each tenement and flat in that building. It is said that there was no objection to their entering or searching it. My Lords, do you really expect coloured immigrants living under those conditions, when a sergeant and two constables come knocking at the door, to have the self-assurance to object?
The policemen entered and told all the inhabitants of that tenement or flat to remain in one room while they searched the whole premises. One man even wanted to go to the lavatory but was not allowed to leave the room. They were kept there until senior officers and immigrataion officials from Heathrow had questioned them. Oh, the farce of it! There were hundreds of police in these mass raids. Do your Lordships know how many people they took to the police station after all their action? Fifteen. Do your Lordships know how many of those fifteen were detained after interrogation? Five. Of those five, two were released after further examination as being completely innocent. Two were kept, not because they were immigrants but because they were deserters from a ship; and this whole mass action resulted in one person being detained for trial. If that is not a witch hunt, my Lords, I do not know what a witch hunt is.
My Lords, I leave other points unmentioned and come back to an appeal which I made earlier. That is, that if immigrants are to be deported they should have an opportunity to appeal to an arbitration tribunal. At the present time an immigration official at Heathrow may demand production of a passport, and if he becomes satisfied that the man is here illegally he can be deported without any trial proceedings at all. I beg the Government to think of these cases in the same way as they think of the cases of those who enter Heathrow illegally in the first place and to allow

31
them, before this action is taken, to go to an arbitration tribunal.
The last point I make is this. I will not read my quotations, but everyone associated with seeking better community relations in this country says that those relations have been worsened by fear, by the danger of blackmail and by the cloud which is always over the people as to what may happen under this Act and its provisions. I beg Her Majesty's Government to try to think in terms of their original intentions, to try to think in terms of beter human relations, and not to oppose the Bill which is now before the House.
3.56 p.m.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, when the Chief Whip's Office was kind enough to put me on the list of speakers at a late hour I undertook that I should be exceptionally brief, and exceptionally brief I shall be. I can be because, as has been pointed out already, with the exception of one speaker everyone who has spoken has supported the Bill, and I am prepared to eat a substantial portion of this Bench if the noble Baroness who is to follow me does not support it as well—though she may disprove the fact, and I may be put into a digestive difficulty.
The reason why I think it necessary for a number of us to urge the merits of this Bill is, first, that I have over the years, in my increasing experience of this House, become rather suspicious of a circumstance in which a number of people are prepared to speak in favour of something and a large number of people are not prepared to translate their prejudices into reasoned arguments. Hence, I am always convinced that where there is a large number of people speaking on one side and virtually no one on the other, we shall find that in the Division Lobbies it may be prejudice which prevails, and not reason.
I hope that the Government particularly will listen carefully to what has to be said in support of this Bill. I am slightly disheartened—although, frankly, I did not attach too much importance to it—at hearing an interjection from the noble Viscount speaking on behalf of the Government that our noble friend Lord Somers would not be the only person
32
who would be speaking against this Bill. It was disheartening because it implied, which I am sure is not the case, that the noble Viscount was not receptive of the arguments which we were so strenuously addressing to him. I hope indeed that that will not prove to be the case.
Now this is a very important Bill. It is not a trivial Bill in the least: because, after all, what is government about? Government is about the provision of a better society, and I invite your Lordships to consider whether we shall have a better society if this Bill is accepted or if this Bill is rejected. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, made a very sincere and honest speech. He said that these people whom we are now seeking to protect came here knowing that they were committing crimes, and he asked why should anyone have the slightest sympathy with people who know that they are committing crimes. Of course, that is a highly legalistic and uncharacteristic, if I may say so, bloodless representation of the situation which is a million miles away from the realities of the situation. These wretched creatures who came here came because they were in desperate need of succour and refuge. They did not come with the knowledge that they were committing crimes; the question of committing crimes never entered their poor, bemused heads. They came because they needed somewhere to come.
Perhaps I may recall the words of the right reverend Prelate in his admirable maiden speech. I do not intend to add to the plaudits which have been uttered in relation to it for fear of making him immodest, which I am sure would do him great professional harm. I will only say that when he used the phrase (and I wrote it down): "a reasonable measure of tolerance of irregularity"—what a magnificent phrase!—should not a civilised society be prepared to indulge a reasonable measure of tolerance of irregularity? Should it attack things with the total legalism of the inspector in Les Miserables who, I am happy to say, had the good sense to drown himself? Should we not realise that in a society where human beings live it is necessary to depart from the legality in favour of ordinary humanity? Government is not an inhuman machine. This particular Government demonstrated that very clearly and, if I may say so, to their

33
immense credit, in the treatment of the Uganda Asians. I would ask that the same spirit that prevailed in relation to the Uganda Asians should prevail in this matter.
It is intolerable, my Lords, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, made a very grave mistake in trying to compare the situation of a coloured person, stopped exceptionally because he is coloured and asked to prove that he has a right to be here, with a person asked to produce his driving licence. The whole point about the production of the driving licence is that a man is asked to produce it whatever his colour may be. There is no question of discrimination against him because he belongs to to a particular limited community. I urge the Government to accept this Bill. I do not know what attitude will be manifested towards it. It is not in the least, if I may say so, a challenge to the courts. The courts, as they were obliged to do, interpreted the earlier Act according to their notion of what it meant. If anything, the present Bill is a rectification of draftsmanship. I think this would be a good occasion to show that, at a time when rather difficult things are happening in our society, and when there is a feeling that obdurate attitudes are being taken on all sides, an attitude of tolerance and indulgence towards the weaker fragments of human society could be demonstrated by a humane Government.
4.2 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, as well as not wanting to fall out with my noble friend Lord Goodman, I would also say that on principle I am speaking in favour of Lord Avebury's Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I find that we have already had indications that the Government are going to resist it—unless the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has a last minute change of mind. No one, except the noble Lord, Lord Somers—who, I believe is sitting on the Cross-Benches—has spoken against this Measure. I hope that I can convince the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that if he was stopped and asked to produce his driving licence but was unable to do so, unless he assaulted the policeman—and I am sure that the noble Lord would not do such a thing—he would be given five days in which to produce his licence
34
at the nearest police station; so the analogy he drew is quite wrong.
One point which struck me in reading the Report of the previous debate (I was not able to be present when the debate took place last summer) is that it would appear that the Government made a mistake about the whole thing; that this was not the intention of the Bill; that it gradually evolved, maybe in a Government Department or in some way or other, and the Government got landed with it. It is not uncommon for that to happen with Governments. It is not the monopoly of Conservative Governments, either, for something which is encased within a Statute to remain there. The corridors of legislation are lined with amending Acts that were passed in order to amend words which have been put into previous Acts but which do not represent the real intention. When the legislation comes to be interpreted by the courts the judges are not allowed to go back to look at what was said in Parliament and to what was the intention; they have to go by what is written in the Statute. So we had to have another Act of Parliament. It seems to me that this is an occasion when the Government honestly, and without any loss of face, could say, "This is not what we meant by this Act. We did not mean it to be retrospective in this way and therefore we shall support Lord Avebury's Bill."
If the noble Viscount is going to rest on the proposition that perhaps the wording is not exactly as it should be, or the drafting needs amending, I am sure that that is something which could be dealt with. It is not a matter of principle but a question of the subject matter of the Bill. We saw something of this sort—fortunately it was caught in time in your Lordships' House—when the race relations legislation was going through. Had it gone through this House in the form in which it came from the Commons, the first clause, which was really the most important clause in the Bill, would have gone through with the meaning that whereas there would be equality, in many ways this would mean being equal but different. The matter was raised in your Lordships' House and I took part in the debate at that time. There was a consensus of opinion from both sides of the House supporting the view

35
on which I based my argument: that if there is a doubt then there is a doubt. If this is so we cannot have a piece of legislation going forward in this way. I am pleased to say that the Government took this view and it was altered; another Amendment, a very similar one, was accepted, and the legislation went through in a different form.
Similarly, in a different example, but along the same line of thought, as it seems to me, were the two fairly recent Gaming Acts. In the first one there was a great deal of argument about whether, if the Bill went through as drafted, it would lead to numbers of casinos springing up all over the place. The answer given was, no, it will not, and that the proposed legislation would stop them. In fact, it turned out to be quite the reverse.
This, it seems to me, is what happens in our Parliamentary system, and there is no reason why it should not. It is extremely difficult to be sure in a democracy, where there has to be a great deal of compromise all the way through, that you are going to get the thing right, first time, or sometimes even on the second time round. I do not believe that the intention of the Government could be to arouse the sort of reaction and behaviour that is going on at the moment, of which all noble Lords who have spoken have given examples, and therefore I think the Government should look at this matter very seriously. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was absolutely right when he said that this is not a trivial, but a very serious matter.
To-day, in the economic situation in which unfortunately we find ourselves, to me sensitivity about race relations becomes even greater. In the mail that I have received recently, and indeed in the letters I received after I asked the Question which I asked a week or so ago in your Lordships' House, about the emergency regulations and a family planning publicity campaign, I was horrified to find that every single letter referred to the coloured population; to their responsibility for increasing the population; and, in fact, things very much worse than that were, so to speak, laid at the door of the coloured people. These letters were not all from people who were either illiterate or appeared,
36
on the face of it, to be absolute "nuts". They were letters from people who on some occasions invoked Christianity. Someone wrote to me saying that she was a trained nurse and a midwife. But this theme went all the way through the correspondence.
I would add my voice to those of other speakers in saying that it is the duty of the Government, in circumstances such as these, to make certain that nothing they do, however inadvertently, adds to the exacerbation of existing racial problems. We have to accept that there exists a great deal of prejudice. The duty of a Government of whatever political complexion is to reduce, so far as they can, the amount of prejudice and not add to or exacerbate it. One of the points which has been mentioned is harassment by the police. Here again, I think it is such a retrograde step for the present legislation to operate in the way it does because in many areas liaison committees have been formed; and they work with the police and are trying to create a far better relationship. Once a matter of this sort is put into the hands of the police any good will which has grown up immediately starts to break down.
Then again, the question of blackmail which has been mentioned by several speakers, does not apply only to members of the white population who dislike having coloured people living near them, or who may feel, quite legitimately, that the people they are concerned with may be illegal immigrants. Several people concerned with community relations have told me that this has opened the door to the blackmail of one coloured person by another. Such a situation adds quite enormously to the terrible tensions that will exist so long as things remain as they are. The police have been asked whether they have to take note of anonymous telephone calls; the answer is that it is their duty to investigate them. To this sort of legislation we should give our whole-hearted support, unless it can be proved that what is contained in the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would constitute a grave danger to the security of the country or to the conduct of community relations in the country.
Even if the Government resist the Bill, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury takes the matter to a Division people will forget their Party line and

37
consider the matter as one of humanity and of justice in our society.
4.12 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, if I may intervene for one minute, I wish to make one point only. At the beginning of my apprenticeship in your Lordships' House—an apprenticeship which still continues—I found that during the passage of the 1971 Immigration Bill it was an extremely moving and educative experience to notice how many Members holding different points of view were coming together from all sides of the House to offer their advice to the Government as to how the Bill then before us might be improved. I believe that during the passage of this Bill in your Lordships' House we passed three times as many Amendments as were passed in another place; and there were occasions when, late in the night, the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd of Merton, was echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. We were concentrating all the wisdom of this House upon this measure, and we had every sort of experience upon which to draw.
I attended the Committee stages in another place as a member of the public. I sat through every stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House. I was no more aware than anybody else that there was an element of retrospection in it. At this moment, when Parliament is receiving so much criticism for being ineffective, for not discharging its functions properly; when the Government are being criticised for being remote and distant and for not taking into account various aspects of disquiet or anxiety among various sections of people in this country, surely we in this House, who spent such a considerable time in 1971 in examining the Bill in great depth, can say with confidence that, looking back, we had no idea retrospection was intended and that in supporting the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we are merely re-introducing something we thought we had put into the Bill in the first place. I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his speech. I hope we shall come to a speedy decision.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for not having put my name down to speak. I
38
intervene now only because I was present during all the stages in this House of the Bill which became the 1971 Act. I remember distinctly my noble friend the Leader of the House assuring the House that there was no element of retrospection in the Bill. This was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. As the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has quoted the very words of Mr. Maudling in another place, perhaps I may repeat that the retrospection can have got into the Act only by subsequent judicial interpretation—which is a thing that none of us expected, wished or intended. It is for that reason that I support the Second Reading of this Bill.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, I do not intend to say more than about six sentences; but as one who came to this debate with an open mind and who has listened to arguments of great cogency, may I appeal to the noble Viscount, in his speech on behalf of the Government, to address himself to two questions? The first is whether, in the present state of the law, there is the element of retrospection which has been alleged; and secondly, if the answer to that is in the affirmative, whether that element of retrospection falls into the category of those exceptions to the general presumption against retrospection which all sensible people must admit occasionally arise. May I conclude by stating what has not so far been stated in this debate but which I am sure must be in the minds of most of your Lordships, that is, the general argument against retrospection. It can be stated succinctly thus: the purpose of law is to guide choice in the future. It assumes the possibility of deciding between one course of conduct and another. Retrospective legislation applies to conduct in the past, in respect of which no further choice can be made.
4.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, most of those who have spoken this afternoon—the noble Lords, Lord Avebury, Lord Greenwood and Lord Brockway, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, my noble friend Lord Hylton and others—have referred to the passage of the 1971 Act through Parliament. I am perfectly prepared to accept from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, that he heard during those earlier debates what

39
he thinks to have been categoric assurances that there was no retroactive element in that Bill. All I can say is this. I was not here, and this subject was a matter on which my noble friend Lord Windlesham spoke at very substantial length on the last occasion. He told the House then that he never said any such thing, and I am afraid that I cannot improve on that. I have not done the analysis that he had on that occasion last year, and I am bound to say that he, as the member of the Government in charge of that Bill, is the one I must believe when he makes the statement that he made then.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I just read what Mr. Reginald Maudling said? Mr. Maudling said on Third Reading of the Bill in another place:
"I said on the Second Reading, and I am very anxious that this should be known, that Commonwealth citizens already free, free of conditions, which means, broadly speaking, all working immigrants, will not be affected."
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is concerned (though I acknowledge I have not the terms of his speech in my hands), I can only say, as one who took part in those discussions, that many of us took the view that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, had indicated quite clearly that the Bill would not apply in a retrospective way.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF, CULROSS: My Lords, this was a charge that my noble friend took some half hour, frequently interrupted, to rebut last June. I do not think I am likely to do it any better than he did on that occasion. May I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, steeped as he is in the law of immigration. The noble Lord knows perfectly well what is meant by somebody who is settled here free of conditions; you are free of conditions if you have been properly through the channels of immigration and you have been allowed, by legal means, to come and settle in this country without limit, for example, on the length of your stay or on the question of whether you may take a job or not. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that that does not include people who sneak in in little boats into dark places in the middle of the night. I will come back to that in a minute.
40
When my right honourable friend the Home Secretary made the statement after the Opinions of your Lordships sitting Judicially had been made known last June, he said quite plainly—and who am I to disbelieve him—that throughout it has been the intention of the Government that the 1971 Act should have the effect that their Lordships then declared it to have. I must make this perfectly clear: Siren voices have been directed against me to try to tempt me or to seduce me into saying that there was a mistake which we can now pleasurably put right. There was no mistake, my Lords; there was no other view in our minds at any time. It is no use the noble Lord, Lord Soper, saying that this Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is just a matter of clarification. It is not; it is just a plain reversal of the decision of this House sitting Judicially: it is a plain reversal of the Government's policy.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that the Bill is not technically retrospective; it is retroactive. If noble Lords want an explanation of this, will they please let me give it. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, specifically asked me for one. The point is this. I accept that there is, first of all, a presumption on the interpretation of the Statute by the court that it will not be interpreted so as to act retrospectively unless Parliament has made it abundantly clear. What we are saying in this case is that there is no question of retrospection, in the ordinary sense of the term, in that there is no making of something illegal which was, until the passing of the Act, legal. The people who are caught by this particular provision came into this country illegally in the first place, they remained here illegally, they never passed through the necessary immigration controls and they never were subjected to the same tests that other people of the same sort had to be subjected to. The only thing that happened was that the time during which they could be prosecuted under the Magistrates' Court Act ran out. This did not mean to say that they were legally here; it merely meant that they could no longer be prosecuted. That is the situation that was put right, in my view, by the 1971 Act. That is, I think, an accurate description of the effect of this particular Act, and it is this which the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, wishes to reverse.

41
When I spoke last June, I suggested to the House that the Bill we are now again discussing was one that the Government thought it was wrong to support. I would briefly recall the reasons for saying that because I believe that experience since has shown that the Government were right in their judgment on this. I shall disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, and others, who thought that I might have a last minute change of heart, but I am afraid that I am coming to the support of the noble Lord, Lord Somers, and I shall be the second person to speak against this Bill.
The drafting of Lord Avebury's Bill, I must tell him yet again, and then I will not mention it any more, is chaotic and nobody knows what it means. But we will leave that, and the noble Lord can produce the same answer that he did last time. So long as the Long Title is all right, that will do.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I will say that the drafting is not chaotic. The Bill means what it says.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, is the noble Viscount saying that the language is "labyrinthine verbiage" which are the words that the Law Lords applied to the Government Statute?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have not the dignity or the point of advantage of the noble and learned Lords to address myself in those terms. All I can say is that my legal advisers cannot give me the faintest idea what the effect of this Bill might be as it is presently drafted. It certainly does not have the effect the noble Lord wants because it is completely contradictory in itself, and at variance with other matters in the 1971 Act, which it does not appear to amend. Never mind; let us leave that.
The point is to try to remove the retroactive effect of the Act. I will remind noble Lords of the two kinds of illegal immigrants who are still able to be caught under it. The first category is Commonwealth citizens who entered in defiance of a specific refusal of an immigration officer at any time since the 1962 Act came into force, an example of which is Mr. Sidhu who had been refused entry twice and had still come back in a little boat afterwards. The second
42
includes those who entered since March 9, 1968, when the 1968 Act came into force, without examination by an immigration officer. I said last June that the Government considered that it was right that there be a power to remove people who had knowingly committed an offence by entering clandestinely, particularly since evasion of the immigration laws continued to be a serious problem. On this point we have had support from noble Lords earlier this afternoon.
Any other course (I said this in June and say it again now) would be unfair to those who had waited their turn to enter this country legally or were still waiting to do so, and it would give encouragement to others to follow the example of those who had succeeded in jumping the queue, or thought they had. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that these are no poor, benighted, ignorant people. He should see the stories, the lies they tell and the wriggles they try in an effort to convince the immigration service that they arrived here on March 8, 1968, or that they came through proper channels. There is no lack of sophistication in this field, my Lords. I have seen some of these cases myself. It is quite astonishing how far people will go to try to prove the legality of their entry. I can only deduce that they know perfectly well that it was in fact illegal.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Viscount to address himself to the real issue. Is he saying that the Government of a civilised country consider it right that a man who has been here for fifty or sixty years, who has a family and children and grandchildren, and who has lived lawfully and peacefully in this country should throughout his life be subject to a risk of deportation simply because he effected an illegal entry many decades ago? Is that what the noble Viscount is saying the Government believe to be right? I do not think any right-thinking person anywhere in this country would agree with that.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I cannot understand what possible relevance that has to the issue before us. I have explained that this can only possibly have happened since the coming into force of the 1962 Act. Certainly, as I have also said before, if such

43
people remain undetected until they are grandfathers after having been here for fifty or sixty years, this would be certainly one of the matters taken into account in the ministerial consideration of every case. I gave a list of the considerations last time, and I do not think I should spend any further time going through them again, because the noble Lords will have read the debate. I said last time that the Government recognised that we were faced with difficult problems in these cases and there would be instances where, for compassionate or other reasons, such as the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has just suggested, it would be right to make exceptions to the basic principle: but where somebody is found in this country illegally, it must be normal practice to send him away. The exercise of the power contained in the Act is at the discretion of my right honourable friend. He has given an assurance, which has been faithfully carried out, that individual cases that come to light will be examined by a Minister in the Home Office, and all the circumstances, including any compassionate ones, will be fully considered before a decision is taken. I will come to the figures in a moment.
Last June concern had been expressed that the implementation of the provisions of the 1971 Act would adversely affect community relations. It has been said again to-day. Fears were voiced that the element of retroaction contained in the Act would be extended and so jeopardise the position of members of the immigrant community who were legally in this country under the existing immigration law. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, said again to-day. Certainly I did not understand from the tenor of speeches from the Labour Benches that that would be the policy of a Labour Government, and if in the unlikely event it were a Liberal one, I doubt whether the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would encourage his colleagues to extend the law in that way, either. So where this fear is to come from I really do not know.
It was our view, on the other hand, that firm and fair control over immigration is an essential part of good community relations—I totally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, about his
44
interpretation of the 1971 Act on this particular score. It is an essential part: it applies as much to the host community as to the immigrant community, and both of them are entitled to a reassurance. This is at the root of the reason why we think that there should be these retroactive measures. If the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says that this equal concern for both the immigrant and the host communities is racist, then his use of the English language differs from mine. The immigrant community are entitled to an assurance, if they are legally in this country, that they are secure, that their security is absolutely safeguarded and they need fear no harassment. I shall return to that point again. The host community need reassurance that the control over immigration is firm and effective and that the Government are doing their utmost to prevent people who entered the country illegally from establishing themselves here and obtaining an unfair advantage over those who abide by the rules.
While I join in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on his speech, though I confess that I cannot agree with it, may I point out to him that those who get left behind when people jump the queue are people, too: people who wait patiently, usually in the sub-Continent of India. They abide by the rules; they take their turn and they sometimes have to wait a long time. These are the ones over whose heads the illegal immigrants have jumped. I would put as much store on the personal situation of those people in the sub-Continent, and the hardship from which no doubt they may wish to escape, as I would on the personal problems of the illegal immigrants in this country. There are two sides to this question which one cannot escape.
May I point out to your Lordships that those who have mentioned the efforts that we made in this country at the time of the Ugandan immigration will also remember how perilously close sometimes we get to a position where the pressure on the host community becomes too much for them. During that time there were areas which were beginning to say that they thought they had received about as many people from Uganda and from other parts overseas as they could at that particular moment assimilate. We must

45
remember this, because good community relations depends on both sides: the host community as well as the immigrants. These were the kind of reasons which I gave on the last occasion to suggest that we should not support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Let us see whether I still have the same to say to-day. It is still the case that illegal immigration is a serious problem. Speaking on December 6 last year in another place on race relations and immigration, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary reviewed the measures that it had proved necessary to take to attack this evil trade, and those who read his speech will see what he was doing at the time, and still is. At a time when there is still continuing evidence of determined attempts being made to evade our immigration control—what about the 22 in the lorry found at Dover the other day?—it would—
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, what the noble Viscount is saying is utterly irrelevant to this Bill, and he knows it perfectly well. Anyone who enters after January 1, 1973, is not covered by this Bill.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: What I am saying, my Lords, is that illegal immigration has been, and continues to be, a great evil and is one we must miss no opportunity to try to suppress. It is indeed relevant to see that it is still going on, that it is still highly organised, and that still there is a very substantial amount of it.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I do not like to hear the noble Viscount being interrupted so much, but the position is confusing. The Bill specifically states that it does not apply to people who arrived here after January 1. In fact, it goes on to say:
"ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for any period of more than six months prior to 1st January, 1973."
I do not see how the Minister can continue to discuss the Bill in the context of the future of illegal immigration. I should be grateful, and I think many noble Lords would be, if he would keep his observations to the terms of the Bill before us now.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am setting the context of
46
the Bill and I say that illegal immigration in the past, at the time we are talking about, directly in connection with this Bill, was just as bad as it is to-day. We cannot get away from that fact. We cannot burke it, or we should not, with respect to the noble Baroness. We think that any relaxation is likely to give encouragement—even although in law they would not be protected—to those who are still contemplating clandestine entry and perhaps, above all, to those who organise and further this evil trade and batten upon the failure of their clients to understand all the details of the law. To grant an amnesty, we say, to those who knowingly broke our laws, which is what this Bill would do, in our view would indeed encourage others to believe that they, too, in time would be pardoned if they could "get away with it" for long enough—provided they could find their way here and keep out of sight for a sufficient number of years—for another amnesty or another Bill of this kind to come forward. It is all the more important, therefore, we say, for it to be seen by all concerned that the Government are determined to keep a firm control.
After the Judicial decision in this House fears were expressed that large numbers of immigrants would be rounded up by the police and sent away and that hardship would be caused to families who were left without a breadwinner. Split families were very much in point, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, mentioned them again to-day. My right honourable friend gave an assurance that no new special measures would be taken to seek out those who had entered illegally before January 1 last year, but fears that there would be a large-scale removal continued to be expressed. So let us see what has in fact happened. Full statistics of illegal entrants, or those discovered, from January to September, 1973, have been included in the Quarterly Immigration Statistics which have been placed in the Library, and those for the whole of 1973 will be available shortly.
I can give the House to-day substantially complete figures for the year, but there may be a few minor amendments to be made in the light of detailed consideration of individual cases. I do not know where the figure of 10,000, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has

47
come from. I never have known where this figure has come from. However, during the last year 253 illegal entrants were detained. Of these, 94 entered after January 1 last year and therefore are not affected by this Bill; 159 had entered before January 1. It is these 159 with whom we are concerned here. Of them, 96 have been sent away and 25 have been allowed, exceptionally, to remain. The balance of 38 is made up of cases where, when these figures were collected at the end of December, either a decision by a Minister had still to be taken, or a decision to remove had been taken but removal had not been carried out because the issue of a passport or other travel documents to the person concerned by his own Government was awaited, or travel arrangements were incomplete—this quite often happens. Where the illegal entry occurred before January 1, 1973, all cases of people removed or allowed exceptionally to remain, since the assurance given to Parliament by a Government spokesman in June last, have been considered individually by a Minister—I have considered a few myself.
All the circumstances have been carefully reviewed, and any compassionate circumstances or representations made on behalf of an illegal immigrant have been fully taken into account. I must say that this is no casual, lighthearted matter. The inquiries that are made, and the information put before the Minister, are exhaustive. They are the result of a tremendous amount of research, not carried out in an atmosphere where the illegal immigrant, as one noble Lord put it, had to be his own advocate; all we are after in these cases is to find out the truth, and this is sometimes singularly hard to do. Very few illegal entrants have, after all, been found to have wives in this country. In the vast majority of cases they are either single men or men who have wives and families overseas. Here I can give some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Somers. The fears expressed about the numbers of families that would be split by the use of the powers in the Immigration Act have proved unfounded; indeed, the opposite is the case, because very often the man has been sent back to join his own family overseas, and the family is joined up again. But if we were to do as I have been invited to
48
do this afternoon, to allow married men with families overseas to stay in this country, it would produce a still further increase in the number of wives and dependants to which we already have a commitment where the head of the household is settled legally in this country. Again, this would be inconsistent with the Government's aim of maintaining a firm and fair immigration control.
The important question has been raised this afternoon of community relations, and there has been a good deal of talk about the fears that harassment would occur on a widespread scale. Would noble Lords be so good as to give me chapter and verse in the cases of which they have knowledge? I think the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said that he had some in Camden. Please could I have the details?
There have also been some fairly notable exaggerations about this subject. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned the searches, and he said he knew about what had happened in Camden. I never for one moment doubt the sincerity of the noble Lord, but there are elements in this that he has exaggerated. I know that he has not done this on purpose, and that he really would like to know that it was not such a horrendous occasion as all that, nor one which tallies in every respect with what he described to the House.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should be glad to hear where I have exaggerated. I have gone very carefully through the papers, both the evidence which was given to the Camden Community Relations Committee and the reply from Her Majesty's Government. If, after Hansard has been published, the noble Viscount will point out anything that I have exaggerated, I will withdraw anything that I have said that is wrong.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, that is as fair as the noble Lord always is. In the course of the periodic discussions that my right honourable friend has with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, there has already been a discussion of this incident, to see whether lessons can be learned, and I think they can. My right honourable friend is also going to see a delegation

49
from the Council of the London Borough of Camden where again discussion of these facts can occur. Perhaps therefore it is best to wait until the second of those events occurs—it is due soon—and we shall see where the truth lies. I think the noble Lord had it wrong in some respects.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, the noble Viscount is already saying, even before these investigations, that I have exaggerated to this House, but he has given no evidence that I have exaggerated.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord mentioned the presence of hundreds of police. Lord Greenwood's description was of a general raid. This is not so. If he was referring to that one—and I do not know whether he was—specific information had been received which indicated that there was a probability of illegal immigrants being in those houses; and there were, as we have heard.
Without wishing to elaborate on this point, and without detracting from a promise—indeed, a request—to hear of individual cases of harassment, I have read in the course of preparing for this debate a lot of generalised and very exaggerated material that has been put out by some people, and I do not think it helps the cause of community relations at all. We recognise that there was a genuine concern—and doubtless still is—both in the immigrant communities and among those concerned with promoting good community relations. We think that this was contributed to by much misunderstanding of the people, and perhaps the numbers, who will be affected by the provisions of the Act, about how the provisions will be implemented.
We have done our best to allay these fears. A noble Lord has already mentioned the Home Office circular issued last July to chief officers of police which made it clear that the Home Secretary wished the police, in enforcing the immigration laws, to avoid harassment—and that is why I want details. The police were asked to act with understanding in individual cases and to ensure that persons arrested as illegal entrants were allowed to get in touch with relatives or friends. Instructions were also given to immigration officers to ensure that persons detained as illegal entrants were
50
told that any representations they wished to make personaly, or by a representative on their behalf, would be taken into account when a decision on their future was taken. We also emphasised that if they were to be removed they should have time to settle their affairs and collect their belongings.
We have not had many complaints of harassment; we think that the police generally have been acting in accordance with the wishes of my right honourable friend. We do, however, investigate carefully the few complaints that we have received, which is why I want details of what noble Lords have been talking about. It remains our view that a firm and fair immigration control is an important factor in maintaining and promoting good relations between the indigenous population of this country and the immigrant community, and that the existence of the powers in the 1971 Act to remove people who entered illegally is a significant part of that control.
We believe that it is right that there should be power, and that it should continue to exist, to remove people who are found to have come into this country illegally. It is also right, however, that these powers should be exercised with the greatest care and degree of judgment and circumspection in each individual case. That has been done by Ministers under the assurances given. We believe that is the proper balance to take. We remain firmly opposed to this Bill, and I very much hope that it will not get a Second Reading.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask for clarification on one point which seems to me to be the main issue of the debate? The noble Viscount is accused of retrospective action. His reply is: "No, it is not retrospective; it was retroactive". This is absolutely meaningless to me. Is there a distinction of importance here? Could the noble Viscount make this clear?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, retrospective legislation—to take a case away from this field—is, say, where you impose a tax in a past year on a transaction which was done in circumstances where no taxation was attracted—suddenly a tax is imposed retrospectively on it—or it is said that

51
anybody who built a greenhouse in 1966 has committed a criminal offence, when it was no criminal offence to build a greenhouse in 1966.
The distinction I am making is that it was illegal to come in without going through the ports and the immigration authorities. It remains illegal to have done so. The only thing that happened was that because the six months' period of time to prosecute in the magistrates' court—which is general law—ran out, the prosecution could not be brought. This did not affect the illegality of the entry in the first place.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, is not the removal of an immunity retrospective?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: No, my Lords; I think I have accurately set out the situation.
4.50 p.m.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief in reply, but I must make one or two short comments on the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who, apart from one other noble Lord, was the only one out of the 14 speakers who have taken part to speak against this Bill. I must dispute the distinction which the noble Viscount attempts to make between "retrospection" and "retroaction"—a distinction which is unknown to lawyers and particularly to the noble and learned Lords who had to consider the cases of Azam, Khera and Sidhu on appeal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, in particular used the word "retrospective" and that was the view taken both by the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords sitting in its Judicial capacity. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, who is himself a barrister, would possibly defer to the opinion of those higher judicial authorities.
The noble Viscount said that the drafting of this Bill was "chaotic"—which is slightly stronger language than he used on the last occasion when I introduced this Bill. He is wrong. The drafting is perfectly accurate. It explains in precise terms what the Bill means and would have the effect which I have sought. But even if he were right, if the Bill went into Committee the drafting could easily be rectified, and criticisms of drafting are
52
the last refuge of Ministers who have no better argument to adduce. He said that there was no mistake; that the Government had intended this effect. I must say, with great regret, that, contrary to the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the Government are an inhuman machine. The noble Viscount said that to pass the present Bill would give encouragement to others who attempted to break the law and to enter this country illegally. But, my Lords, as has been made clear throughout the debate, and as I made clear in an intervention, nobody who entered this country illegally after January 1, 1973, would be entitled to any immunity. We are saying that we concede the democratic right of Parliament to enact laws—although we may dislike them—which impose penalties on people who do things in the future. What we heartily dislike, and what I suggest the House ought to dislike—and the country as well, and constitutional lawyers—is the imposition of penalties on people who committed certain acts in the past which were illegal at the time but which, through the passage of six months, as in this case, have become immune to any proceedings or administrative action.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords. I should like to ask for clarification. Is it not a fact that this Bill is seeking to legalise what was an illegal action?
LORD AVEBURY: No, my Lords, it is not. I am happy to clarify that. What was a breach of the immigration laws—
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords. I am all for simplicity and I want to ask, was it an illegal act?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the entry into this country without submitting oneself to examination by immigration officers was a summary offence—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: An illegal act.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it was a summary offence.
LORD PEDDIE: Use the proper term, please.
LORD AVEBURY: That is the proper term. It was a summary offence, triable in a magistrates' court, for which a person became immune from prosecution after six months. Therefore between March 9,

53
1968, and January 1, 1973, a person who had committed that offence and who had remained in this country for six months was in the same position as anybody else. He was immune from prosecution or deportation or removal, and the expiry of that six months had put him in the same position as the noble Lord who has intervened or myself. Then Parliament retrospectively removed that right from him. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, put it, it was the removal of a basic constitutional right which that person had enjoyed. I hope that makes the matter plain to the noble Lord, Lord Peddie.
In this Bill we are not seeking to grant an amnesty but are simply seeking to restore a right which Parliament has taken
away. I regret to say that the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was in parts intemperate. It was obdurate; it was lacking in humanity; it was aggressive; it was in parts afflicted with bad law; it was calculated to alarm the immigrant community even further than has been done so far and to strike a very serious blow against our constitutional principles. So I implore the House to give a Second Reading to this Bill and to reject the speech made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and the policy of the Government.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 80.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Platt, L.

Amherst, E.

Garnsworthy, L.

Rochester, L.

Amulree, L.

Gifford, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

St. Davids, V.

Arwyn, L.

Goodman, L.

Seear, B.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Shinwell, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hacking, L.

Simon, V.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Slater, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

Henderson, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Henley, L.

Soper, L.

Byers, L.

Hoy, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Champion, L.

Hylton, L.

Stocks, B.

Chorley, L.

Janner, L.

Summerskill, B.

Clwyd, L.

Kennet, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Wade, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Energlyn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

White, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Melchett, L.

Willis, L.

Fiske, L.

Meston, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

O'Hagan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Phillips, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Denman, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Derwent, L.

Loudoun, C.

Amory, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Auckland, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Effingham, E.

Mar, E.

Berkeley, B.

Elles, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Bessborough, E.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Milverton, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Erskine, of Roderick, L.

Molson, L.

Brock, L.

Ferrers, E.

Monson, L.

Chesham, L.

Fortescue, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Gore-Booth, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Conesford, L.

Gowrie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Courtown, E.

Grenfell, L.

Reading, M.

Cowley, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hailes, L.

Robbins, L.

Craigton, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Crathorne, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cromartie, E.

Hankey, L.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Sandys, L.

de Clifford, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Semphill, Ly.

Denham, L.

Ironside, L.

Sharples, B.

Somers, L. [Teller.]

Strathspey, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Stamp, L.

Thomas, L.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, B.

Wolverton, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Vivian, L.

Young, B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion for Second Reading disagreed to accordingly.

CONTROL OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS BILL [H.L.]
5.4 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move this Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will perhaps recollect, the previous Bill which I introduced in June last was not only given a Third Reading in your Lordships' House but given an unopposed Second Reading in another place. There is no doubt that the anxiety of the public generally, and of Parliament in particular, continues in respect of our concern for the provision of proper care for animals which are held in zoological gardens where charges are made for admission.
As I stated previously—and I do not propose to detain the House for any length of time—the Federation of Zoological Gardens was brought into existence for the purpose of supervising the care given to the animals under the control of the members of that Federation. Its membership now consists of some 38 zoological gardens, and about one million visitors per annum visit those gardens. The members are anxious to ensure that the care which they give to the animals should be of the highest degree, and they are more than willing, because of that—and perhaps in spite of that—to have their zoological gardens inspected in the strictest manner possible so that if any deficiency is discovered, albeit they have taken every precaution that they felt necessary, matters can be put right by them. This is the spirit in which colleagues in both Houses have approached this very important matter.
My Lords, there is no doubt whatever that in many cases animals have not been given proper attention. Although some of the owners of the gardens concerned may not have been aware of the deficiencies which exist in zoological gardens under their control—and in many cases there was none—the fact is that great public concern has been aroused by the reports which have been given from time to time
56
as a result of investigations conducted by responsible, interested bodies and individuals. For example, the Sunday Mirror investigator, Mr. Pettigrew, wrote:
"The safari parks of Britain's stately homes give a lot of pleasure to a lot of animal lovers, but the pleasure depends on the belief that the animals are living in as near natural conditions as possible, conditions that suit them and make them contented. The Sunday Mirror inquiry into safari parks has uncovered disturbing evidence that this is not always the case. Nobody suggests that there is deliberate cruelty by those who run the parks, but ill-treatment caused by lack of experience and lack of knowledge is none the less ill-treatment."
May I take a few examples from the objective and penetrating article written by this Mr. Pettigrew? He quoted the case of an infant cheetah, suffering from an injection, which froze to death when denied the heat of other cheetahs to keep it warm at night; baboons huddled together in cold and inadequate shelters, pathetically trying to keep warm round a bonfire; terrified tigers driven up trees to escape a Land Rover driven by young, irresponsible and unsupervised staff, who presumably thought it amusing. Sir Peter Scott, the famous naturalist, says that he does not think the parks should keep animals which do not acclimatise well to our cold and wet climate. One of the attractions of the safari parks is that they give animals a freedom of movement denied them in the cages of conventional zoos, a poor freedom if linked with cold, squalor and overcrowding, because in the wild, big animals have many square miles of territory. The Sunday Mirror inquiry showed that the standards of some parks are not satisfactory, and that there is urgent need for independent and expert supervision.
May I quote a report issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals some time ago? Officials were warned by them about the increasing number of small zoos in Britain. They want laws to lay down minimum standards and to control the number of zoos because they say that many animals are kept in dirty, cramped conditions. A veterinary surgeon who toured some of the many zoos reported deplorable conditions. At one zoo, cages and pens were dirty, bedding non-existent or badly soiled, and water containers

57
full of leaves. I believe that my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale is going to speak on the matter, and he is much more acquainted with the methods and the inquiries that have been made by that particular Society, of which I believe he is a highly respected honorary officer.
I said a moment or two ago that I do not propose to keep the House long. At one time I thought of reading out the relevant column numbers and asking whether Members would be good enough to read what I said earlier, instead of listening to me, which I am sure would have been more pleasant for them. But I want to make just one or two further references. In column 990 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for June 15 last year I described the zoo legislation introduced by other countries, which was very considerable. The position today remains as it was when I mentioned it in my speech then, and during the last few months, in connection with this, the Zoological Federation has been consulted on its zoo inspection system by both the Dutch and the Italian Associations. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook (in column 996 of the OFFICIAL REPORT for the same day) referred to the reputation of zoos. He said:
"… the reputation of all zoos will suffer if had zoos are allowed to continue".
He made the point that dealers and pet shops are controlled by legislation, and that it would be illogical to exclude zoos from similar controls, since many acquire animals from dealers. He said it was worth while emphasising that no good zoo need fear this Bill.
I should like to refer very briefly to amended provisions which appear in the Bill that is now before your Lordships. There is no point in my referring to the clauses: they speak for themselves; and many of us have spoken on them before. Under Clause 8(1)(b), the fees are to be calculated,
"on the number of or the amount of money received from paid admissions".
This gives the Council more flexibility in devising a formula which will be fair to the various zoos in accordance with the number of visitors they attract. Clause 11 is a new clause requiring the Council to report annually to Parliament. This should allay the fears of anyone who
58
believes that the Council will be too autocratic. I would refer your Lordships to paragraph 1(b) in Part I of the Schedule, under which the four members nominated by the Secretary of State are to be appointed,
"having regard to the size and type of zoological garden …"
This accommodation is to meet the suggestion of Lord Tollemache and Lord Strathcona, each of whom represented non-Federation zoos at the time of the debate. It will be a difficult task to choose zoos on this basis, but with the number of zoos being looked into from the point of view of an arrangement of this description it can be put into effect usefully.
Under Part II of the Schedule paragraphs 6 and 8 respectively provide for removal of a member of the Council and enable the Council to borrow. It does not seem to me that these are controversial from the point of view of the zoo world. Perhaps I ought to point out (this can be rectified very easily at Committee stage) that paragraph 6 refers to "Mr. Secretary of State", which is obviously a misprint.
I would ask the House in the circumstances to give this Bill a Second Reading. I think it is a matter which should be put through fairly quickly. There is deep concern, and I do not imagine that anyone can reasonably oppose a Bill which endeavours to give proper protection to the animals and proper protection to those who visit zoos, and generally to deal with the position, which at present is an unsatisfactory one in very many respects. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Janner.)
5.17 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I would be very nervous about addressing your Lordships for the first time on any subject, but I am particularly worried about rising to speak on a Bill which your Lordships have debated so often before. I am very glad to have the opportunity to support this Bill, but at the same time very sorry that it has not proved possible for it to become law before I have the chance of saying my bit. I should like to add my support to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, for introducing and persevering with such a

59
worthwhile Bill. I think that I am right in saying that it was during an election campaign in Swansea, in which my great-grandfather was a candidate, that the political interests of the noble Lord, Lord Janner, were first awakened. I sincerely hope that his first encounter with the great-grandson is not going to reverse that process.
Reading through the previous debates on this Bill in your Lordships' House, I find that I am in very good company in making a maiden speech on this subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache, spoke for the first time on a previous Second Reading. I regret to say that I am not able to bring to this debate the wide experience and expert knowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Tollemache, brought to the previous debate. However, I do have an interest in this area, as I have been a member of the Pheasant Trust for a number of years and keep some ornamental pheasants myself. The Pheasant Trust exists to keep and breed ornamental pheasants, and to encourage others to do the same. Of the 48 species of pheasant alive to-day, no fewer than 16 are at present considered to be in danger of extinction. The Pheasant Trust is housed at Great Witchingham in Norfolk, which is also the home of the Norfolk Wildlife Park.
These two organisations have a marvellous record for breeding birds and mammals, and particular emphasis is placed on breeding rare or endangered species. At the same time, the Wildlife Park has a collection of animals that is ideally set out for visitors, and considerable care is given to providing educational material for schools. In 1972, for example, the Pheasant Trust and the Norfolk Wildlife Park together bred and reared to independence 63 mammals and 367 birds. Losses during 1972 amounted to 22 mammals and 94 birds, giving a net gain over the year of 41 mammals and 273 birds. In the same year, 3 mammals and 60 birds listed in the Red Book of endangered species were successfully bred by the two establishments, and in the ten years since its foundation in 1961 the Pheasant Trust bred 882 birds of eight species of pheasant listed in the Red Book.
This is a very remarkable record, and I think it would be fair to say that very
60
few other zoos could equal it. A breeding record like this enables rare species to be preserved, and creates reserve pools of endangered species that can be reintroduced to their country of origin, when circumstances permit and when there seems a reasonable chance of the reintroduction being a permanent success. Reintroducing captive bred stock into the wild is not easy, but it can undoubtedly be very successful, the reintroduction of the European bison being a classic example. Over the last few years, the Pheasant Trust and the Norfolk Wildlife Park have between them played a part in successfully reintroducing Swinhoe's pheasants to Taiwan, Cheer pheasants to India, and eagle owls to Norway and Germany, and the Pheasant Trust is currently working on reintroduction schemes involving several other types of pheasant in various countries.
As important, in my view, as reintroductions, successful breeding in zoos should eventually make it unnecessary to hunt, capture and transport wild animals to zoos, with all the unnecessary but inevitable suffering and death that that process entails. Many wild animal populations not in immediate danger of extinction are declining in numbers, and, were zoos to become self-sufficient, that would at least remove one of the pressures on these animals.
My Lords, I hope that the Zoological Gardens Council that will be set up by this Bill will collect and collate the statistics on births, deaths, acquisitions and sales of animals that Clause 4(f) of the Bill will require all registered zoological gardens to keep. I hope that the Council will divide such statistics into endangered and other species, and make them available to the public, possibly by publishing them in their annual report. It will then be possible to see whether or not some zoos are "consuming" wildlife, and on what sort of scale. Hopefully, the collection and publication of these statistics would underline the importance of breeding, and would encourage any zoo-owners with a poor record to concentrate on getting all the animals in their care to breed whenever possible.
The 1972 Annual Report of the Norfolk Wildlife Park states:
"It will become increasingly difficult for a zoological collection to justify its existence unless it can show that it is a net producer rather than a net consumer of wild life. That

61
is to say the number of animals bred in the collection each year must exceed the number lost. Regrettably few zoos can make this claim at the present time."
I hope that this Bill will start to make it difficult for a zoological collection to exist unless it can show that it is a net producer of wildlife. My Lords, I should like to thank your Lordships for the kindness and consideration you have shown in listening to my remarks, and to wish this Bill a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
5.24 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I need hardly say with what pleasure I follow the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, who has just made his maiden speech. Like many of your Lordships, I knew his father for many years and greatly admired him. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord on choosing as his subject for a maiden speech such a non-Party subject. I should further like to congratulate him on being so brief, because he was well within the ten minutes that I think is the usual usage of this House for maiden speeches. I once heard a maiden speech—I will not tell your Lordships who it was—that lasted nearly an hour. I wonder whether the noble Lord gets his love of wildlife from his mother (who I am very pleased to see here), or his father. I think I am right in saying that it may be from his mother, because I understand that a short time ago his aunt on his maternal side wrote a very good book on the Wildlife of Northumberland. I am sure that we all enjoyed the noble Lord's speech, and I hope that he will come often to this House—and perhaps one day he might even change sides. However, I will not bring that up now.
I spoke on the first version of this Bill in March, 1972. Unfortunately, I was not here for the second version, and now we have the third version. When I spoke on the first version I welcomed the Bill, but with certain reservations. A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since then, and conditions have somewhat changed. In considering the third version of this Bill, there are really only two questions we need ask ourselves. We must ask ourselves whether it is in fact necessary to have stricter control over zoological gardens open to the public—and I would stress the words,
62
"open to the public". The other question that we must ask ourselves is whether this Bill is the best means of achieving that control. We already have laws in this country to protect animals in captivity. I need only mention the Cruelty to Animals Act 1911.
I should declare an interest. I have wild animals in captivity, but in that regard I am rather small fry. I have animals and also birds in captivity, especially eagles and falcons that I fly, but I do not have any carnivores, all my animals being herbiforous. When we talk about cruelty to animals, the first thing we must consider is controlling cruelty and escapes that might endanger or cause loss to the public. When I speak about cruelty regarding zoological gardens and safari parks, I am speaking of cruelty in the widest sense, because if cruelty exists in zoological gardens or safari parks, it is the cruelty of animals being kept in the wrong conditions.
So far as we know, wild animals—and I think this applies to all animals—lack certain things that human beings have. They do not have an imagination, so far as we can gather, and they do not have any appreciation of scenic beauty. To a certain extent, some animals can reason, but the wild animals' requirements are the essentials. They require a sufficiency of the right food and water, and the right temperature. They do not necessarily need the right climate so long as you provide the right temperature and the right humidity. If it is their habit, they need the opportunity—and it is not the habit, for instance, of a tiger—to exist in family groups in a sufficiency of territory. The question of territory is perhaps where all zoological gardens, including the London Zoo, may perhaps fall down. It would not be possible to give most wild animals the territory that they are used to. It would not be possible to give the wolf the hunting territory he is used to, or the tiger, because the amount of land is not available.
Apart from lack of territory, from my experience zoological gardens open to the public—and again I stress "open to the public"—on the whole do a very good job. However, one thing is certain. If any zoological garden does not keep its animals in the right condition, complaints will soon be made to the various bodies

63
in this country that look after the welfare of animals, such as the R.S.P.C.A., the Universal Federation of Animal Welfare, and various other bodies. The viewing public are very critical. I once knew an old lady who was worried because one of my stags had cast only one of his antlers. Stags do not necessarily cast both at the same time, but she thought it had suffered injury, and wanted to know how it had been caused. We must realise that many complaints made by the public are founded on ignorance. It must be remembered that if zoological gardens open to the public do not keep their animals in the right conditions these animals soon lose condition; they become mopey and look miserable. There is a safeguard in the fact that these zoological gardens are open to the public and it would be very much against their interests to ill-treat their animals. Regarding escapes, the law regarding dangerous animals has now been brought up to date. So far as I can gather, there are very few escapes that have caused loss or damage to the public, and I think the danger of escapes is almost negligible.
My Lords, what mystifies me about this Bill is that the sponsors appear perfectly content to rely on the present law, the Cruelty to Animals Act 1911, to protect wild animals in private zoological gardens not open to the public and wild animals kept as pets by individuals. But as I have just pointed out, there is surely more risk of cruelty to animals in private zoos not open to the public than there is in zoological gardens open to the public. I believe that there are people who keep pumas, cheetahs and jaguars (not the four wheeled but the four legged variety) in their backyards; that is where you will get the cruelty. In my opinion, that is rather an omission on the part of the sponsors of this Bill. I may be wrong in saying this because I know that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is extremely concerned with the welfare not only of wild animals but of all animals, but it might appear to the casual onlooker that the sponsors of the Bill did not have the welfare of wild animals in captivity uppermost in their minds.
Only two clauses in the Bill deal with the welfare of animals. Clause 4 deals with the welfare of zoos and Clause 5 with inspection. The other twelve clauses
64
in the Bill deal with fees and such matters as that; I would call them a bureaucrat's field day. Unless my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross can tell us that under the existing Act there have been numerous prosecutions concerning zoological gardens open to the public it would appear to me that stricter control is not really necessary and therefore this Bill is not necessary. If my noble friend can give us a long list of abuses and complaints regarding zoological gardens open to the public then I am quite prepared to admit that stricter control is necessary. If it is necessary, is the Bill the best way to do it?
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, mentioned only one association, though in fact there are two associations to which zoological gardens open to the public belong. There is the Federation of Zoological Gardens, which the noble Lord mentioned, with a membership, I think he said, of 38. There is also the National Zoological Association, formed in 1972 after the noble Lord produced his first Bill. This Association represents nearly 60 safari parks and zoological gardens. There are also a few more zoological gardens outside the membership of either of these associations. The Federation of Zoological Gardens is closely associated with the London Zoo and I would not call it representative of the smaller zoological gardens.
So far as I am aware, the sponsors of this Bill do not appear to have consulted very fully with the National Zoological Association who, after all, represent nearly twice as many members as the Federation of Zoological Gardens. This, in my submission, is rather an omission on their part. I would point out that both these organisations conduct their own inspection of members' establishments. In fact the National Zoological Association inspection team includes veterinary surgeons in general practice, with long experience of zoos and safari parks, and also a director of the Universal Federation for Animal Welfare. They give their services free.
My Lords, I should not be happy to see many of the provisions in this Bill become law. Do we really want to add to the conglomeration of bureaucratic institutions by appointing a council of eleven

65
men to supervise the inspection of a small number of zoological gardens? I do not think the case is proven for such a council. The expense for the smaller zoological gardens—now saddled also with V.A.T.—would be considerable. Members of the council would be nominated, a method often open—but nearly always unjustly—to suspicion. We know in this House, which is not open to suspicion at all, that we have the "usual channels". I think that perhaps some of the smaller members might object to having a council nominated. This nominated council would have arbitrary powers. They would have powers to remove a zoo from the register and perhaps ruin a man's livelihood. It is true enough that he can appeal to the magistrates' court. But is the magistrates' court the proper place to give a ruling on this question? It is true that my Riding Establishments (Amendment) Act, now on the Statute Book does have the same procedure, but in a rural area among the magistrates one is bound to get some magistrates whose children ride so that he will probably have some knowledge of horses. Where in magistrates' courts are you going to find any magistrates, such as the local grocer, who have a knowledge of tigers, or gorillas, or giraffes? It would be a very rare occurence to find magistrates who have any experience in these matters.
On account of the varied natures of zoological gardens and the specialised knowledge required, I also doubt whether Clause 4 would adequately cover welfare and safety because under Clause 5 only one member of the inspecting team need have professional qualifications. If the Home Office and Parliament are convinced that an independent inspection of zoological gardens is needed, surely that can be done by a veterinary surgeon on the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture. The number of zoological gardens is small. At the most it is 150 but the known ones number not much more than 100. Surely two veterinary surgeons would be ample for inspection purposes at an insignificant cost to public funds.
Zoological gardens could be licensed by local authorities, as are riding establishments, on the advice of a Ministry of Agriculture veterinary surgeon. I am sure that zoological gardens would be prepared to pay a licence fee to cover
66
the costs of inspection. That method would ensure expert and impartial inspection and licensing. It would dispense with an expensive and cumbersome ad hoc bureaucratic body, as I have already said, a body which the smaller zoological gardens might find overbearing and will certainly find expensive. We tend to forget that an organisation like the London Zoo, of which incidentally I am a Fellow, is very wealthy. The London Zoo gets big subsidies from the taxpayer. I believe that last year the London Zoological Gardens, including Whipsnade, got £2 million so that the fees payable under this Bill by the London Zoo would be a negligible burden. Therefore, in conclusion, I can only say that so far as I am concerned the Minister will need to put forward very convincing arguments that this Bill is necessary before I can support it if it should go to a Division.
5.45 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, we have had 22 minutes of to me rather confused hostility to this Bill which I very much regret. I should have thought that the noble Viscount would feel as strongly as I do that if you are going to make money out of exhibiting animals to the public you not only should keep them properly but there should be rules to ensure that you do keep them properly. If the noble Viscount is against that, let him say so.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: There are rules. It is adequately covered by the existing law in my submission.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: With respect, that is not the case. There is no law to say that you must have proper veterinary attention for animals that you keep. There is no law to say that if you keep animals in a wide space you must have a reasonable way of catching them, just to give two examples. It is frightfully important. Anyone who is interested in animal husbandry or who farms, as does the noble Viscount, knows that one must have a crush. There are a number of things which ought to be insisted upon as there are a number of zoos, particularly of the smaller kind, to which he is as sympathetic as I am—I am not against them, I am for them—where these things are not done. Sometimes it is because the zoos do not have the money to do them.

67
As I understand it, the objective of my noble friend Lord Janner in producing this Bill is to lay down minimum rules. This is a rather big subject if you consider what has happened over the last ten years. In 1960 there were 30 zoos in this country; in 1967 there were 72; in 1972 there were 96; and in 1974 we have 167. I do not say of the increase in the last two years that some of the zoos were not there and had not been spotted before, but it is a tremendous proliferation and it is no good saying that the whole situation is perfectly all right.
These zoos are providing a need which in my opinion the public will increasingly demand. The public go out at weekends to see things and it is wholly desirable that they should, but there should be rules to ensure that these places are properly kept, and inspection is the only possible way of doing it. The R.S.P.C.A. and the Universities Federation have no automatic rights of inspection, and it seems to me essential that this should be part of any arrangement made. That is really all that this Bill is trying to do.
Just to give an idea of what exists, at the moment there are 82 proper zoos, which include nine societies, nine municipal zoos and 64 commercial zoos. There are 39 bird collections, which include three societies, one municipal and 35 commercial collections. There are nine safari parks, all commercial, and there are 12 aquaria outside those in zoos. Of those one is a society, six are municipal and 18 are commercial. There are 12 dolphinaria of which all 12 are commercial. So out of 167 zoos you have 138 which are purely commercial. Good luck to them! They are doing jolly well. I do not want to limit them at all, but I would wish to have them regularly inspected and to insist on certain standards.
That brings me to the most agreeable part of the few words I want to say, which is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Melchett on his, to me, striking, extremely well-informed and delightfully delivered maiden speech. He made one or two points which I intended making so I shall pay him the compliment of underlining them. First, the Pheasant Trust is a prominent member of the Federation, of which I should have said at the beginning of my remarks I am the chairman—
68
so I have a part interest in this matter—and its director chairs our reading association. They have done a remarkable job in breeding birds and reintroducing them into the wild where they originated, which is one of the most fascinating things one can do nowadays and is a justification for the existence of zoos.
My noble friend's next point, which seemed to me admirably put, was: how many zoos are consumers of wild life? This is a point to which I should like the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, who I believe is sympathetic to the whole subject, to give his mind. The noble Viscount said that the public can tell by looking at the animals, but they did not tell very well with the dolphinaria. We have heard horrifying stories of dolphins being replaced, with Gertie being replaced two or three times by a different Gertie; the casualties in dolphinaria were very heavy and the public could not see it. I do not think that that is something which people who have any interest in animals can accept.
I have nothing to add to the general approach of my noble friend Lord Janner. I have taken a minute or two to ask the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, to consider whether he is right in being so very doubtful about this Bill. I should like to point out that the question between the Federation and the Association is not affected in any way by this Bill. The Association were consulted in some detail before the first Bill. We had a number of meetings, when we thought the Bill would go through quite quickly and it was necessary to settle what the two bodies would do. The meetings were entirely amicable; but then, quite suddenly, for no reason of which I am aware, they were broken off and have not been renewed, and I have taken no further action. I believe that zoos which are properly run will benefit from this Bill, and that zoos which are not properly run should not exist at all.
Finally, I should like to refer to zoos which are not open to the public, which the noble Viscount mentioned. I do not think my noble friend Lord Janner or anybody else wants to exclude these, but nobody can find a way of including them. The point about zoos which are open to the public is that you have a sanction to stop them exhibiting publicly and taking

69
money, but there is no sanction against zoos which are not open to the public. Perhaps we can get together later and draw up another Bill to deal with them; I shall be very happy to do so. With the proliferation of zoos and the absolute lack of control over anybody who likes to hire a field and put a tiger in it, provided that it does not damage the public and is not subject to a complaint from the R.S.P.C.A., the situation is not very satisfactory. Keeping animals is a serious matter and it should be taken seriously. So I hope very much that your Lordships will support this Bill and will give it a Second Reading this evening.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask why he objects to the Ministry of Agriculture giving this service and appointing one or two of their veterinary surgeons to inspect zoological gardens? Surely that would be a much better method, and the zoos could be licensed by the local authority. That would save all the expense and would save having an enormous council of 11 men. Only two veterinary surgeons are needed to inspect 100 zoological gardens, yet there is a council of 11.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, if the noble Viscount can persuade the Government to make the Ministry of Agriculture do this work, my noble friend Lord Janner will immediately withdraw his Bill and we shall all support that move. Of course that is by far the best solution. I can only say that they will not look at it.
5.55. p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I intervene very briefly, for two reasons. First, I want to join in the chorus of congratulations to my noble friend Lord Melchett. I often feel that this House would seem a very elderly establishment were it not for the young hereditaries, and when the young hereditaries turn up on the Labour Benches they are doubly welcome. I thought my noble friend spoke most persuasively this evening. I hope that we shall hear him many times during what I hope will be a comparatively brief period before he assumes responsibilities commensurate with those which were borne by his distinguished father, and I also hope that his speeches will be made
70
as if the from the Labour Benches but from the other side of the House.
Secondly, I wish to talk quite briefly about the attitude of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, because I have heard it said during the last week or so that some who might be regarded as vested interests have been putting around the view that the R.S.P.C.A. is not behind my noble friend's Bill. The R.S.P.C.A. has consistently asked for proper control of establishments of this kind. They appreciate that probably, on the whole, the larger establishments are satisfactory, but there are, nevertheless, many small poorly financed zoos and displays of wild animals which leave a great deal to be desired. The Society, far from objecting to my noble friend's Bill, has taken the view that for two reasons it would be better if it were strengthened.
The Bill sets out the conditions under which an establishment will be licensed after inspection by appointed officials from the Zoological Gardens Council, and if it is not licensed in that way the proprietor will not be able to charge a fee for admission. The view of the Society has been that it might not be wholly effective if the inspecting officials were appointed by the Council, and that there might be a situation in which one zoo or a group of zoos had a special influence on the Council, which might cause a great deal of embarrassment to any inspecting official who took action to the detriment of an establishment.
We in the Society have therefore felt that, while we do not oppose the Bill in any way, it would probably be preferable that inspecting officials came, for example, from the Home Office or the Ministry of Agriculture, or were appointed by the Ministers responsible for these matters. We have also criticised the Bill because we are not satisfied that, if an establishment were licensed in the way the Bill proposes and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals later found that conditions there were not satisfactory, we would have the right to take action against the proprietor of the licensed establishment. Those are two respects in which the Society would like the Bill to be strengthened and, certainly, there is need for control of establishments of this kind.

71
I listened with great interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard. I thought there was perhaps just a slight note of complacency in his attitude to these establishments. Perhaps he has a much nicer nature than I myself have, and he sees good where I may be a little more cynical. But, certainly, one cannot overlook the fact that a number of these establishments fall below the standard that we ought to require of them. When we debated this matter only six months ago, I drew attention to a report on the Windsor Safari Park which was visited by an R.S.P.C.A. inspector on December 19, 1972. The report which the inspector produced made absolutely awful reading. It transpired, for example, that between 130 and 140 baboons had to share one room at night. The report spoke of a head keeper who, in the view of the inspector, had no real training in wild animal care, changing the baboons from one pen to another with a whip in his hand, and the inspector said that the animals were terrified.
He goes on to talk about the cats having exposed living quarters and no inner sleeping compartments in which they can hide away from the public. This, my Lords, concerns the Windsor Safari Park, one of the most successful safari parks in the country, which must attract a very large number of visitors, but which at any rate at the time of the inspection a year ago fell very far short of the standards we are entitled to expect.
My Lords, perhaps my noble friend Lord Janner will consider the points that I have made before we come to the Committee stage; but although we have these small criticisms we nevertheless welcome the Bill very much indeed, and I hope the Government will feel able to support it so that it goes through your Lordships' House without opposition tonight.
6.1 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, this is the third time round, as we all know, and it is notable—indeed, this must be one of the main justifications for doing it a third time round—for having induced the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, to make his maiden speech, on which I should like to join with other noble Lords in congratulating him. As to his future progress, the noble Lord,
72
Lord Greenwood, seems to have that fully under control already.
As for the Bill itself, the Government have not changed their position from that which I told your Lordships about before. As is customary in animal welfare matters of this sort, our attitude towards the basic issue of regulations for zoos, as the Bill embodies, is one of neutrality. It always has been. Certainly I must tell my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard that it is not for me to justify the introduction of this Bill—that is far from the neutrality which I seek to adopt—but I can tell him about prosecutions. There are comparatively few specific complaints about zoos, or about cruelty to animals in them, and on investigation most are found to be without any serious foundation. So not many prosecutions are brought for the ill-treatment of animals.
My Lords, the Bill now before us contains a few minor alterations in drafting from the Bill that left us last July. I think these improve the wording and the clarity, and I welcome them. But there are still a few aspects of this matter on which I am uneasy. They are not new points—I referred to them before—but I do not think they have yet been resolved. I do not mention these matters in any way in order to discourage the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and his supporters but because I am convinced that if the Bill is to be successful and effective in achieving its aims we must be sure, before it finally passes, that all its provisions are workable and capable of being put into operation effectively when the time comes. I am all in favour of the activities of the Council, including those in Clause 4(f), which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned; but it is a question of the means of doing all this that worries me.
There is the question of setting up the Council and of its administrative structure, and its subsequent operation and financing. I am not quite clear how it is envisaged that the Council will set itself up. It is noteworthy that under the Bill it is my right honourable friend rather than the industry itself that is to appoint the Chairman of the Council and a large number of its members, in some cases after consultation. Then there are other members who are to be appointed by the bodies mentioned in the Schedule. But

73
after that it looks as if the Chairman and members of the Council themselves would be responsible for setting up the administrative structure needed to discharge their duties under the Bill. They would have to appoint the staff needed for this; they would have to have premises, and they would have to arrange for a supply of cash to tide them over, at least until they can start collecting registration fees.
This would be a fairly formidable task, I think, for the Council to take on without assistance. My right honourable friend would have neither responsibility nor authority to intervene; and let me make it perfectly clear that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is quite right: the moment anybody started suggesting that the Government should embark upon expenditure of public money or the use of Government servants, I think my attitude of neutrality would take a very sharp about-turn, and I am afraid that I cannot hold out any promise to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, or to my noble friend on that aspect. If the industry is going to do this, it will have to do it within its own resources.
It has been suggested that the two bodies we have heard about, the Federation and the Association, which together represent the majority of the zoos and which already carry out the sort of inspections proposed in the Bill, might be prepared to assist the Council to set itself up. If both these bodies supported the Bill and had indicated a willingness to co-operate in making it work, I might feel a little more sanguine about the prospects of the proposed Council becoming a going concern; but at the moment there is no indication of this. Certainly from the correspondence I have recently received from the Secretary of the Association and from the conversations that I have had (and there was also a doubt expressed in the speech of my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard) I gather that the Association remains opposed to the Bill in its present form—indeed, to some extent on this very ground of machinery that I have been talking about. So I shall be very glad to hear whether the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and his colleagues have given any further thought to the way in which these practical problems about setting up the Council might be overcome.
74
I am not trying, I emphasise, to discourage the noble Lord or to disparage what he is seeking to do; but I feel that this is the sort of problem which must be solved before this Bill gets on to the Statute Book. It is no use glossing it over in the hope that "it will be all right on the night". I think that if the scheme the Bill sets out to establish is going to function and function effectively, there must be no doubt about the way in which the Council, which is central—indeed the whole Bill revolves around it—will be established; and we shall want to know how it will operate.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, will not think that these are unhelpful remarks. They are intended to be constructive criticism and to make the whole of his enterprise into a successful one. Certainly there is nothing other than that that I want to criticise. The formal attitude of the Government, as I have said, is one of neutrality; and I am very happy indeed to leave it to your Lordships to decide whether the Bill should progress, how quickly, and with what Amendments, so long as they do not include public funds.
6.8 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, let me commence by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on the excellent speech which he made. I was very interested to hear his reference to the intervention I once made at a public meeting when his great-grandfather was being attacked for his political views. I had the privilege to know his great-grandfather afterwards fairly well, and certainly to know his grandfather and his father, and their various spouses. I am sure that if his grandparents and his parents had been living at the present time they would have derived very considerable pleasure from hearing the speech that he made; and we hope that we shall hear him often.
With regard to the Bill itself, let me first of all point out that this Bill has been very closely examined over a considerable time, and I and my co-sponsors have given very careful consideration to the points that have been brought to our notice. I would say to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, that the Association, which was formed after we had introduced this Bill originally, and which consists purely of commercial people who

75
have a vested interest—we must face up to that fact—has not at any time during the whole of the proceedings brought forward any amendment. We have gone right through the points raised in this House and no one raised any point when the Bill went to the other place.
My Lords, when preparing a Bill, one has to take into consideration the main principle with which one is dealing and do one's best to meet the suggestions made. But then one has to accept a kind of compromise. We could have made the Bill very much stronger in its effect but we have taken into consideration the points which have been raised at various times. We tried to get into contact with the Association, but it stood aloof from the deliberations in both Houses. Examining what they have put forward, we do not feel that it could contribute towards solving the serious problem which exists in any better fashion than the provisions of this Bill. There is no suggestion in the Bill of amour propre on the part of anyone. It is simple in form and no one could obtain any advantage from its provisions whatever association or federation they may belong to, other than the protection of the good name of zoological organisations and gardens throughout the country.
We are anxious to remove the possibility of serious allegations being made by responsible people. I hope the noble Viscount will appreciate that at this stage I do not wish to exacerbate the position. But some of the statements made in the investigations which have taken place have caused alarm. They have been connected with some of the members of the Association to which the noble Viscount referred. In its general terms, the Bill seeks to provide efficient machinery which would give satisfaction to the public, and provide for the protection of animals and the proper control of zoological gardens. There is nothing in it, in my view, to which anyone could object in respect of the grounds to which I have referred. My colleagues and I hope that the good name of zoological gardens will thus be protected against the very serious allegations which have been made in respect of the keeping of animals. One animal keeper said that he was horrified at what was happening in the zoological gardens with which he
76
was concerned. In itself, surely, that is enough to indicate that something has to be done about the position. One could give many instances of the serious events which have taken place. I do not say that they have happened with the intention of zookeepers or as a result of any deliberate act on their part, but rather because of neglect of some kind which could and should be dealt with by legislation of this nature.
I would add to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, about the keeping of animals by private people. I do not think that I could be accused of having failed in any way to bring to the notice of Parliament the fact that I think some kind of legislation should be introduced to protect those animals as well. But we cannot do that through this Bill because it would create certain complications which could not be easily overcome. I hope we shall give a Second Reading to the Bill. If there is any point which a noble Lord wishes to raise during the Committee stage that could be dealt with, but once again I would point out that no one did so during the Committee stage or the Report stage or the Third Reading of the two previous I sincerely trust that this Bill will receive a Second Reading.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that he spoke of responsible publications, but the only publication he mentioned was the Sunday Mirror. I mean no disrespect to the Sunday Mirror when I say that I should have been far happier had he quoted The Times, the Daily Telegraph or even the Guardian. I do not think that the Sunday Mirror is a good example. Certain newspapers are published to cause sensations. The other point I should like to make to the noble Lord is that if he had seen baboons in the wild he would know that they are very gregarious animals and love crowding together.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House longer—because we have had a fairly long and interesting debate on this Bill—but does not the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, realise that even if he does not like the Sunday Mirror the fact remains that it would be better to have an Act of Parliament which would prevent any

77
allegations of this nature rather than that there should be allegations which disturb the public? That, my Lords, is the main point.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
6.18 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Its purpose is to allow the Secretary of State, when disposing of village schools which are no longer needed as such, to offer the building to the local community at a price which takes into consideration its original charitable contribution, rather than, as is often the case at the moment, that the building be put on the market and sold to the highest bidder. I hope to explain why. I am in a bit of a quandary as to what leave out of my speech.
Since first raising this question of our own village hall and school, I have been inundated by letters from all over the rural countryside. Practically all the examples cited were different, but they all had one or two things in common. First, they represent a protest against what is considered to be a very real injustice inflicted by Act of Parliament on individuals or small, poor groups of individuals. In some cases a local landowner had given a school hall which, in the course of years, had become not merely a school but the meeting place for all other rural associations and the centre of village life. In the majority of cases, as in the case of my own village, which I shall presently cite in detail, the school or other benefaction (be it a hospital or anything else) was often the result of a combined effort of a group of local people for the good of their neighbourhood. But whether it was a group or an individual making the original gift, the principle is the same. You offend the sense of justice of the average Briton if "Big Brother" Government legalise what people consider to be robbery.
If I might put it in the words of the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, who
78
wrote to me on the subject (because his words are better than mine), this is what he said:
"Government Departments simply love engrossing property which was originally the result of private charity."
The legalised tampering with wills is another example of the withering away of the individual's rights. This argument was much used in the debates on the museum charges legislation recently.
Under the 1944 Act, and subsequent ones, the diocesan boards of finance sell to the highest bidder; to compete with which at present-day prices is impossible for small communities, even in cases where they have applied for and received the necessary grants. When I first raised this subject I thought it concerned only my own part of the country but letters from Kent, Yorkshire and elsewhere proved that I was wrong. I particularly appreciated one that I received from the honorary treasurer of St. Mary the Virgin Church at Souldern, near Bicester. He told a story similar to my own, where they had lost their fight; and I quote from what he says:
"The building had been erected wholly by private subscriptions of the local inhabitants, and the endowments given by private donors. All attempts in 1968 to rescue for the benefit of the village the proceeds of the subsequent sale of the buildings and investment of the endowments, foundered on the rock of the existing legislation, resulting in a sum exceeding £8,000 leaving the village."
He goes on:
"Whilst no blame can be attached to the diocesan authorities, we are anxious to see the present rule amended to help other communities threatened with a similar fate, and the purpose of this letter is to wish you every success in the presentation of your Bill to Parliament, the progress of which we shall anxiously follow. If it were possible for the village to help you with your crusade in any way, it would, I am sure, readily respond."
My Lords, I call that a very Christian letter, displaying a spirit not shown by the behaviour of many of those who run the Church's financial affairs and who do the Church's reputation no good. Perhaps I might quote two personal examples as an illustration of my point. Fourteen years ago I inherited a resident agent and £150,000 death duties. The position was grim, so my agent went around to all my farmers and negotiated a fairly substantial increase in rents. When he came back I was rather amazed at his success and asked him how he had done

79
it. He said: "Oh, that's easy. I told them I should be retiring soon and was thinking of recommending to his Lordship that he use the firm of Clutton and Drew". As many of your Lordships may know, they were then very efficiently managing Church lands and, as they say locally, squeezing the pip until it squeaks. About six years ago, a friend of mine came to Devon and negotiated to buy an old rectory that they were selling. Having agreed a price on the Friday, they got another offer on the Saturday and "gazumped" my friend for £2,000 when he went in on Monday. I protested in vain on his behalf. I was selling a surplus farm house at the time and had had an increased offer on what I had agreed to sell for under the same circumstances; but I could not do what they did. I could not have continued to live in the neighbourhood if I had behaved in the way they had.
I have searched in vain for any argument in favour of retaining the present arrangement. The best one is that money obtained by selling these school halls will go to another church school elsewhere. This argument would hold water only if the authority had always owned the hall as part of a composite whole, but where they have not and where the local inhabitants have built the hall themselves for their own village, then by most people's standards this can only be viewed as legalised theft. Some of these transactions are not all that legal but a great many small village communities cannot afford the fees needed to fight Government-backed Departments. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is better equipped than I to make this point.
Some donors, of course, were more far-seeing, as at Tetcot, where the local squire wrote it in that if it were no longer used as a school then it should return to him or his heirs. This happened, and so the present owner was able to ensure that the hall remained as a village centre. I should like to give you chapter and verse in our own particular case. It is identical with hundreds of others (some already lost) and doubtless more to come, as more and more modern and more centralised primary schools are built. In 1856 a Mr. James George John Templer (I am told he is a fourth cousin, three times removed, of the Field Marshal)
80
gave a plot of land 33 ft. by 33 ft. to the rector and church wardens of Ideford. It was to be used to build a school hall for a day school and a Sunday school and, be it noted, for adult education, as was specifically stated. There is the deed.
While this deed was being prepared the locals, headed by my ancestor, collected a sum of money to build the hall, just down the road from the church and opposite the vicarage. So, on the land given by Templer was built the school hall with money donated by the inhabitants of the parish for the purpose of, be it repeated, in the words of the Deed "educating the children of the parish of Ideford and adults, not elsewhere in the county, not elsewhere in the diocese". The great-grandson of James Templer (also a James Templer) writes:
"I can only say that my great-grandfather, who was by no means a wealthy man although he was fortunate to own some land in the district, would turn in his grave had he known that the contribution he made towards the setting up of the Ideford school would in due course be appropriated by the authorities and then sold off to the highest bidder without any regard to the needs of the local community. Whilst I appreciate that my great-grandfather was by no means the highest contributor … he did contribute the only asset he had—land."
He goes on to write:
"To sell the land now under the powers vested under the 1944 Education Act could only be described as immoral and little short of legalised plunder."
To go from the donation of the land to the providers of the building, I am one of eight direct descendants of the original eighteen donors who still live in the district. I am informed that my ancestor gave the highest donation—perhaps that was why he was one of the first managers of the school, as was his son later. I can assure your Lordships that our ancestors in 1856 had the intention of assisting the parish of Ideford, not the Diocesan Board of Finance. I am certain also, ours being very much a chapel or nonconformist area, that by no means all of the contributors were members of the Established Church. My ancestor was of course Catholic.
Over the years this school became the social centre of the village. The parish council meets there, and always has done, as do the women's institute, the model

81
aero club, the dressmaking club, the keep-fit class, the parish whist drive. Those are the regulars, most of them weekly. The Sunday school has to meet there, as provided for in the original deed. The school is also used for harvest suppers, bazaars, coffee mornings, and the like. Perhaps most important socially is the weekly youth club meeting. The teenagers have nowhere else to go except home. Surely if you are going to go back to the early deed, half of those people meeting at the school come under the heading of adult education. Of course, the original trustees were supplanted under the 1944 Act by the Diocesan Board of Finance. They claim to be interested in furthering religious education. By disposing of the hall in Ideford they will be doing the opposite in one more rural community, if only because it is the only place where Sunday school can be held when the new vicarage has been completed.
There may be some who do not think it a bad thing for rural parishes to lose their centres, and for the younger, poorer element to go to towns for their entertainment. If such do exist I would point out that the only bus service to the nearest town—Newton Abbot—from the village itself is twice weekly in the afternoon only. I cannot do better than quote the letter of our rector, sent to Venture, which is the diocesan monthly magazine. He has something in common with the noble Lord the Minister, in that he was in the Services before being ordained. He says in this letter:
"By legislation concomitant with the Education Act of 1944 the schools were taken over by local education authorities with a proviso made in the Acts that if and when closed as a day school the trusteeship would then revert not to the original trustees but to the Diocesan Board of Finance who were to sell and use the proceeds to further religious education in the diocese. This infamous proviso I am creditably informed was the result of negotiations between the Minister of Education (Mr. R. A. Butler) and Church representatives. This was because the Minister insisted that the Church should capitalise on her assets if she wanted certain rights within the State framework. On being informed that most village schools were not 'owned' by the Church the Minister took the step of ensuring that when available the Church as a body did own them by inserting the proviso —'All other trusts and wills are hereby revoked'. All this happened in 1944 when the nation was still at war, and may possibly account for the lack of contemporary comment."
82
He added the recommendation that his superiors should consult the Second Book of Samuel, Chapter 12, verses i to vi. I commend them to the Minister.
The 1944 Act has of course been repealed by the 1973 Education Act. However, Section 2 of the 1973 Act carries on the same function: hence this Bill to modify that section allowing the Minister to bear in mind the fact that locals paid for the thing in the first place. Of course in this case the parish should have its hall free, but in a Bill such as this one has to cover other eventualities; and since there are other cases where additional buildings may have been added since 1944 it is only right that the locals should pay for the addition.
We do not just sit back and moan, my Lords. Although we have only about 52 families in the parish, we have already collected over £4,000. But it is pathetic having to pay for one's own heritage. Last August I asked a local valuer friend what he thought this building would fetch on the open market. He said, "Roughly £15,000." Since then a similar site with no building on it in the village has gone for £13,000. If we get a grant of half that sum there is still more required than a small, poor parish can find. And for what? As I said in a supplementary on my Question of last July, a holiday home for some Midlands tycoon with more brass than brains. Some may say that we can get a grant. We have applied for one. I am told that we may get £5,000. But your Lordships all know what happens with grants: they get held up; and I do not see our being able to raise more than the £4,000 which our small, rural community has raised so far. I personally call this grant business compounding bribery with theft.
I had thought of mentioning all the places that have been and are threatened in this manner, but it is too long a list; and many of them have slight variations which, to be fair, one would have to mention. But what I do want to make quite clear is that this is the reverse to being an isolated case. I can give your Lordships five locally: Woolsery, Loddiswell, Ashreigny, Wembworthy and Holbeton. Year by year, larger primary schools have been built, and year by year larger areas centred on one school and these smaller schools have been sold off despite

83
local protest. We have a close-by example at Ashford. My Lords, remember what happened at that village near Bicester, for all of you who live in the country, or know the country set-up, could find somewhere near at hand that is threatened or has been threatened. It is a bitter pill for these, the smallest and poorest communities in the land, to have to scrape together in order to buy back at to-day's inflated prices that which was theirs in the first place. Be warned by those words that I quoted of the noble Viscount, Lord d'Lisle:
"Government Departments simply love engrossing property which was originally the result of private charity."
It is time they were stopped. But more serious still is the social evil of stealing the heart of a small community. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
6.39 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for having made clear the purpose of this Bill. This is clearly not a political Party issue; I hope no one is going to ask me this evening, or anybody on this side, what is my Party's line on the matter, for I have no Party points to make, and no Party points to score. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is understandably incensed when the village where he lives is threatened with the loss of a building which for a very long time has been the centre of community activities, as well as being the village school. As I understand it, his object is to provide that before a disused school is offered for sale on the open market the local community shall be given the opportunity of acquiring it at a price or rent to be determined by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, or the Secretary of State for Wales, having regard to the contributions to the endowment of that foundation by the local community.
The principal aim of this Bill is to ensure the use of such buildings in the future for community purposes. May I say that I have every sympathy with that, and I think it is clear that that sympathy is felt in all quarters of the
84
House this evening. My Lords, what the reference to the "contributions to the endowment" means, I am not too clear; I do not see how that might be interpreted or how it would apply. However, that is a matter that could be cleared up. I think that at some stage we should give some thought to those who might have been responsible for the maintenance or improvement of the premises, and no doubt other circumstances may need to be recognised.
What has happened at Ideford, where the school is no longer required for fulltime compulsory education, as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has said, has occurred in many parts of the country. It is generally in the rural areas where the closure of the school brings the threat of the loss of virtually the only place where the residents can meet as a community. In Surrey, where I live and serve on the county council, a number of village schools have been closed in like fashion. They are schools originally provided by the Church or by donors to a Church endowment. A dozen or so such schools have suffered that fate in the last few years. In Surrey, the local education authority, the county council, have acquired a number of the schools in order to provide a centre for community or village activities—such as a youth centre, somewhere where individual youth clubs can meet, or for some educational purpose. The last such school we acquired was at Bletchingley, and it is now serving a useful purpose as an institute of adult education. It is available for other purposes as well, not least as a polling station, if we need it.
As I understand the position, the Surrey County Council have bought these premises at what are known as "market prices", although they have done it by way of private sale. In Surrey, we have had no great difficulty in reaching an agreement with the Church authorities to acquire the premises privately at the rates I have indicated. If one is going to make progress in this way, then it seems to me that what is required is co-operation and understanding between the local education authority, the diocesan board or whoever is responsible for the management of the foundation or trust, and the local community. Quite clearly—and here I have regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has had to say—the buying of these premises by the local

85
community, particularly a small community such as his own, becomes an impossibility. I think I am right in saying that Ideford has just over 50 households. But to take the figure of £15,000, if you get a grant for half, which means raising £150 a household, that is clearly out of the question. I do not know if any effort has been made to acquire the Ideford school in the way that I have indicated we have made progress in Surrey. If that were to fail, I believe there is an opportunity for the new district councils that were elected almost a year ago now, if they find they have the resources, to acquire these buildings as they become available to fulfil a community role. I have no idea whether anybody down in Ideford has thought of trying to find such a solution.
I appreciate that not everybody will do what we have done in Surrey. After all, not every county is like Surrey. A county may not be developing, not getting an influx of new residents in the way we are. Some of them, as in Devonshire probably, have in prospect a static community or even a reducing community, but they still need a centre for community activities. I suggest it might be of great value if the Department of Education and Science—this is a field where the Minister tonight can surely exercise some influence—had a look to see whether in such matters full use is being made of the facilities available under the Physical Training and Recreation Act, and any other legislation that can be used. It may be that the situation cannot always satisfactorily be met by the kind of approach I have been speaking about. It may well be that the Bill could be used as a vehicle in this way. Where the procedures I have touched on do not apply, and where there is no procedure in regard to which anybody can say, "This will serve where the other methods have failed", then I think this Bill affords an opportunity for the matter to be examined in depth.
My Lords, I support this Bill's going to Committee. I hope it will be given its Second Reading so that it may do so, and so that we may go very thoroughly indeed into its provisions to test them and examine in depth a very real problem. Democracy depends upon communities having an opportunity to meet together for collective activities. I do not think anybody familiar with rural England will underestimate the tremendous importance
86
of retaining these old schools which have given such good service in the past. Their role is not finished. They probably have an equally important role to serve in the future as they have played in the past.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has drawn attention to the need and the possibility for adult education in Ideford. I believe we shall find an increasing need for premises that can be used for adult education, not merely in the evening but during the daytime, too. My Lords, I hope that we shall give this Bill a Second Reading. It may be faulty in many respects; it may not be the correct answer. But I believe that we should have more time than we have this evening to go into the matter as thoroughly as a Committee stage will permit.
6.50 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SAINT ALBANS: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will not only accept the customary request for indulgence at my inexperience in making a maiden speech, but also recognise that the matters before us could raise very controversial issues of Church and State and demand some attention to legal and technical detail. It is my hope that I can make a modest and sympathetic contribution to this debate without posing too many large questions or tying myself up in too much detail. Between 1965 and 1970 I lived in a small Oxfordshire village and was elected chairman of the parish council, which to date is my chief political achievement. This, like a number of other bodies, met in a church school which was facing closure. It was a vivid experience of the local community, and I well remember the day when we were visited by the hapless education official and, as the debate raged, the clerk whispered to me: "Don't worry, sir, until hand-to-hand fighting breaks out." Now as Bishop of a diocese and chairman of my education committee I am sometimes able to see things from what in those days we would have called "the other end". I hope therefore that I can claim real sympathy with the intentions of this Bill and yet some understanding of the disquiet which its publication has aroused.
In Section 86 of the 1944 Education Act, the arrangements made for the disposal of the proceeds from the sale of

87
Church of England schools were described as devised for the purpose of enabling that denomination to participate more effectively in the administration of the statutory system of education. So Section 86 enabled frozen educational assets to be released and redeployed within the local diocese in ways consonant with the declared intentions of the original benefactors. This, together with the so-called, perhaps unfortunately called, Barchester Scheme of partnership in savings between a diocese and local school managers, has enabled the Church to participate in the statutory system of education in a measure which has justified the intentions of those who framed the 1944 Act. The 1973 Act has rewritten Section 86. The administration of educational trusts is now to be shared between the Department of Education and Science and the Charity Commissioners. There is more flexibility, in that assets may be redeployed not only for Church schools but for other educational and religious enterprises within the statutory system—and I totally agree with what the noble Lord has said about enterprise in areas such as adult education. All this is welcome development, and the enlightened forward planning of the voluntary contribution in this field depends on the continuance of the policy of 1944 re-stated in 1973. The sudden introduction of a new principle which might seriously threaten the balance between voluntary subscriptions and public expenditure would need to be watched.
I do not believe for a moment that it is the intention of the noble Lord in promoting this Bill to disturb this balance. I believe he is moved by other and powerful considerations. He knows that "our school" means something real and significant to those who attended it, who subscribed to it, and still frequent it on a number of mixed occasions. When it comes to be sold it is eminently reasonable that representatives of the local community, however one interprets the meaning of that ambiguous phrase, should have the chance to buy it. It would seem, however, that such an option could be a regulation or requirement of the Secretary of State without the necessity of new legislation. In fact, a normal practice of the D.E.S. in satisfying itself that the best price for such a sale has been offered
88
is to require advertisement; and it is a short step to be satisfied that representatives of the local community have had reasonable opportunity of making their offer. Such representatives are usually the first to react to the advertisements, and the rich variety of local bodies in most cases would make unsatisfactory to the point of impossibility any other procedure.
It might be said perhaps in passing that old schools are sometimes unsuitable for community use. I often wish that more consideration might be given to adapting parts of a parish church to community use. With imagination, rearrangement and good will, much could be achieved. I know one parish church where a disused ringing chamber is being suggested as an admirable gymnasium. However, where it is really desirable that school buildings should be used for general community purposes, the Church would want to help to make it possible without at the same time endangering its educational contribution at the present time.
The Bill suggests that the price or rent should be determined by the Secretary of State. This obtains at present in so far as permission to proceed with the sale must be given by him. No new legislation is needed. The new suggestion is that we should have
"regard to the contributions to the endowment of the foundation by the local community".
I believe that this well-intentioned phrase is likely to defeat the most competent administrator. The cost of the school built a hundred years ago would no doubt be about one-hundredth of its market price to-day. What was the local community which subscribed? Often subscriptions came from elsewhere. How would account be taken of all that has been done to maintain the school since it was built: from the diocese, from the national society, from the local education authority? I believe it is more constructive to encourage the local community to buy or rent such a property for a sum negotiated with the diocese and approved by the D.E.S., and to explore the possibility of help on something like the two-pocket principle; from the D.E.S. and the L.E.A. and from the diocese. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, in the instance which he has outlined to us has shown that it is surprising what

89
lucrative results can follow from genuine, patient and persistent application.
There is a further point about this phrase "the local community". When larger units of community are perforce being adopted, there is an understandable but not always realistic impulse to return to what was local. But does "local" mean in 1974 what it meant when endowments were given in 1840, 1870 or even 1920? I would submit that this is rarely the case. The impetus for school building can be shown to have had two main historical motives; to advance the cause of the Established Church and, secondly, to enrich the lives of the communities—often the poor in communities which were small, isolated and self-contained. It does not need to be underlined that these social conditions have been shattered in countless ways. In my own diocese the interrelation of village and local new town is thoroughly complex, and sometimes this is of undoubted social and educational benefit.
Our present system of handling educational resources which has a local—that is a diocesan—basis often provides a more realistic unit for dispersal of funds where they are needed but in a context still recognisably local. Sometimes this redeployment can be closely associated—a middle school in Bedfordshire will in part be serving a village whose closed school endowment has enabled it to be built. So if this Bill has the positive aim of making money more freely available for general and unspecified community purposes, it is bound to be negative in affecting seriously the principal source of income for maintaining the participation of the Church in the statutory system of education. Some will always continue to question this dual system, but Church participation in the maintained system should not be allowed to die of starvation or collapse. It should continue or be ended on grounds of principle which should be faced. We cannot justify an education Bill which states a principle and then undermines its application.
The intentions of the Bill are undoubtedly good and I recognise the extreme difficulty of resolving the hypo, thetical question: would the original benefactors now prefer their money to be used educationally or locally? It may well be that in the early days of the application of Section 86 the diocese produced
90
schemes with too narrow an idea of religious education and with too little regard to the local community. I hope the Government will be able to give some assurance to the noble Lord that what he desires can be kept in mind in the operation of the 1973 Education Act as it stands, and that your Lordships will regard that as a better solution than the passage of a Bill which is fraught with many uncertainties.
I believe the passage of this Bill into law would make for local difficulties, administrative confusion and possible damage to the participation of the Church in a systematic way in the maintained system according to the principles of the Education Act. I believe that the intentions of the Bill can be largely realised by regulation or requirement on the one hand and by realism, industry and good will on the other. I like to think that the noble Lord and I are united in a concern for the health of local communities and for the encouragement of that local and voluntary effort of which our schools within the maintained system are still an effective symbol.
7.4 p.m.
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, it is my honour to follow the right reverend Prelate and I am sure that all noble Lords present will wish to congratulate him on a most constructive maiden speech and to say that we hope to hear him often in this House.
There are several points about this Bill which I should like to emphasise. The cost of the building that we have been discussing was almost entirely provided locally. The Diocesan Board of Finance have contributed practically nothing: they have helped in the management, but what they have done towards the construction and maintenance of the building is very small. Precisely why they should acquire this valuable property for nothing is extremely difficult to understand, or to justify. We all know that the Diocesan Boards of Finance are hard pushed for money. It would be beneficial if they were to reflect on the mistakes they have made in the past, and not many years ago, by selling redundant vicarages and the like which, if they had kept them, would now be Worth many times the sum which they then obtained. If the Diocesan Board of

91
Finance had to regain what they had paid it would be a different story. But if they are going to sell this property, as we believe is possible and likely, for a sum in the neighbourhood of £15,000 it sounds to me very like robbery—all with the best motives, of course. But why should the inhabitants of this village have their property, or what was their property, used for religious or other education here, there and anywhere?
Many people who are concerned with drafting and administration fail to realise the importance of local feeling, and it is a great mistake to say "Oh well, people can go to the neighbouring town for what they want in the way of education, drink or otherwise". Bus services are very poor in many parts of Devon, and I think the same can be said for other places. Merely saying that the village people can go elsewhere for their meetings and their pleasure is more what one might expect from the other side of the Curtain. I have the greatest pleasure in saying that I propose to support this Bill wholeheartedly.
7.9 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I rise to support this Bill, and if there is a Division I shall support it in the Lobby, unless my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Sandford, is prepared to tell us later that the Government are prepared in the very near future to go into the whole question, which in fact extends much wider than this Bill. The reason I make that proviso is because I am not quite certain that in these days of inflation the Bill will do what the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, wants and what I want. I do not think that the Bill goes far enough or wide enough. So as far as I am concerned, the position is that if I can obtain an undertaking that something is going to happen which the Government are going to deal with in the near future I may well abstain: if I do not receive that undertaking I shall most certainly support this Bill as a first step against what I believe is something rather scandalous.
It is not very different in detail from the Crichel Down case, except that in this case it is robbery by Act of Parliament. And of course we are not dealing only with what we may loosely call "church schools" (that is the usual phrase) for which, of course, the diocese
92
now wants some money when they are sold. Even in those cases there are endless varieties of endowment, trust, and so on; and except under the 1944 Act (which is the nigger in the woodpile) it is difficult to alter trusts. It can be done under that Act. But there are other schools which the community or individuals have founded for a particular village that do not in fact come under a diocese at all.
May I give one example why I say this ought to go much further. My great-grandfather built a school for a local hamlet, a small village, about six farms, a dozen cottages and a small pub. When he built it, he did not endow it as such, but leased it to the village who wanted it, at the enormous rent of one shilling a year, and the lease ran as long as the building was used for educational purposes. Then, under one or other of the Acts—I was going to say the 1944 Act, but I am not sure whether it was that one—it was taken over by what is now the Ministry of Education, but which may then have been called the Board of Education.
A good many years ago the Ministry of Education closed it after some years; they were not using it any longer as a school. It was still under lease. At that time, the village asked my predecessor whether they could get it released by the Ministry because they wanted the building as a men's club, and wanted to put a billiards table in it. At that time the answer from the Ministry was, "We will not release it because there is a great deal of reorganisation of schools going on and we might want to use it again as a school in the near future; meanwhile you can put in a billiards table and call it a men's club, but the original arrangement stands." This went on for a few years. The next thing any of us in the locality knew was a notice in the local paper that the Ministry was putting it up for sale by auction. I at once said they had no title to this, having the original deeds myself. It was on lease to the village, and the very long lease expired if the building ceased to be used permanently for educational purposes, and reverted to the estate. Those were the terms of the lease. The Ministry replied, "Oh no, you have lost all your rights, and so has the village under the 1944 Act". I think it was that Act—I am speaking without

93
papers—but at any rate it was under a particular Act.
My Lords, I took counsel's opinion. This is why I am asking the Government to do something about the whole of this matter. Counsel's opinion was that the law in this matter was uncertain, and that if I took it to court, I had a 40 per cent. chance of winning, possibly only 30 per cent. If I won, the Ministry would undoubtedly go to appeal, but if I lost I would pay the whole costs. This was a few years ago, so the inflated values were not there; counsel advised me that the property was not really worth what it might cost to go through the courts. So I did not proceed with the matter. I came up to London, went to the Ministry, and saw two of the Ministry lawyers who were very patronising and, I thought, rather unpleasant. I lost my temper, and we did not actually part on very good terms. I did not tell them I was not going further, but suggested that if they sold it I might sue them for the money. We parted on those terms.
I believe they were uncertain of their title because they sold the property, and to my utter astonishment sent me a cheque in part compensation—so long as I did not pursue the matter further, of course. I cannot be sure, but I think that they were uncertain of their title. I believe that in some cases the diocesan title is doubtful, and sometimes, quite often, that the Ministry title is doubtful also. I intend to support this Bill unless the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, says that the Government are urgently going into the matter to try to put the law right. At the moment, I repeat, a lot of this is robbery by law.
7.14 p.m.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I must apologise for not having put down my name to speak, but what I am going to say can be said very briefly. I should think that the preservation of the local community and the sanity which it provides to-day is of paramount importance, especially in these troubled times. Therefore, I am not convinced that in this particular instance it can rightly or best be done by the Church under the powers and provisions of the Education Act. Nor do I believe that the benefactors, were they here to-day, would have thought so. It is quite clear that their descendants do not.
7.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I feel that most of your Lordships will sympathise, as I do wholeheartedly, with the aims of my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I also had a great-great-grandfather who endowed a school; we seem to have had very generous and farseeing ancestors. In this case, the story ended happily, and so I need not worry your Lordships any more with that case.
My Lords, I intervene only for a few moments because I have had the good fortune to have lived for the greater part of my life in a country district, and during my life I have learned of the enormous value of a village hall. Apart from anything else, it provides an opportunity for the expression of local democracy in many forms, and is absolutely essential to a village if that village is to stay alive and respond to the various wishes and desires of people living in villages nowadays. Two of the most excellent movements that I have seen working in my village are the Women's Institute and the Young Farmers, both of which use village halls. There are also the youth clubs. Another purpose, which is not an ignoble one, which is served by village halls, is that of providing places where political meetings might be held during elections. The most magnificent speeches I have ever made have been made in village halls! It was my custom at the five Elections which I have contested to make 105 speeches in village halls; or rather, I attempted the same speech 105 times. There is yet another use of village halls. I remember many ploughing match dinners held in village halls, a number of which were attended by our local Bishop, which gives me the opportunity of saying how much we have enjoyed the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate this afternoon.
My Lords, the aim of this Bill is one which is wholly good. It is a tragedy that a village is denied the use of a building which has become an integral part of the life of that village. But what I am very doubtful about are the actual proposals of this Bill. It seems to me fraught with practical difficulties. I think the difficulty the right reverend Prelate mentioned, of going back to the actual contributions or intentions of the founder, is very difficult indeed. I agree

95
also with my noble friend Lord Derwent; I doubt whether the Bill goes wide enough as it stands. Exactly the same situation can occur in the case of schools, owned by the local education authority, which are no longer used. Therefore, I should like to see a Bill covering not only the Church schools, but other schools which are no longer required as schools which have been maintained for the use of the village at large. It seems to me essential that these schools, whether owned by the diocesan board, or whatever it is, or the county council, when they are available for sale should be made available to the village community in one way or another at a price which is within the capacity of that community to pay. I think that is what my noble friend is seeking, and it is an aim that I would strongly support.
What I should like best to see therefore, is my noble friend Lord Sandford and Lord Clifford putting their heads together to see whether they could devise a Bill which went rather wider than this (because I am afraid that the description of the Bill at the beginning limits its scope) to meet both these cases in a way that would achieve the object which I believe every noble Lord in this House would like to see.
7.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Amory in what he has said. Of course, the right reverend Prelate, whose speech we enjoyed, stands on Section 86 (I think it is) of the 1944 Act. I took part in the Committee stage on that Bill, and there sitting on the Front Bench below me was the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and the late Mr. Chuter Ede—you might say Caesar and Mark Antony. They were pretending to be very good friends over this. They produced the agreed syllabus, like Caeser's uninspiring sister Octavia, and that was supposed to cement an alliance between them for ever. We on the Back Benches did not like Clause 86; we thought that this was an arrangement that would be very difficult to carry out in the future. What happened—I can only speak of my own county—was that a great many of the church schools went controlled and some remained aided schools; the village then turned to and
96
found the money either to improve the school or to improve the teacher's house. We did it since the 1944 Act. I really do not know who first contributed the land or the money for the village school of Chute, which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, knows very well. But it is since 1944 that we have put up the money. That money has been largely subscribed by people who do not go to church; but they did think the village school was something of real value to our community. Several thousand pounds have been subscribed on two different occasions for major construction. Supposing our school was closed—indeed, there was a threat to close it, but it did not come off—it really would be a tremendous up-set for the village if the school was put up for auction and all that we have put into it in the last 30 years went into the diocesan pool.
I think the real trouble arises from inflation. Because the value of these buildings has risen so greatly a small village cannot possibly find the necessary money. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford, spoke of £15,000. I think our village school, with the excellent teacher's house and everything, is much more likely to fetch £30,000, far beyond what we could pay. This is the situation with which I think the Department ought to try to deal. The community is really a very Christian thing. That is why people have supported the school all the time. They believe that our village and other villages should, so far as possible, have a life of their own, and should see each other and should help their neighbours in that way. It is not really right to destroy one of the main assets of community life. I say that not because the Church are not right legally; they are. They have got this section of the 1944 Act and they are perfectly justified in doing what they do. I do not call it wrong. They are standing on a right. But in my view this right is no longer something which should be exercised if the result is that the local community is simply debarred from the chance of buying. Therefore, I think my noble friend would do well to look at the spirit of the noble Lord's Bill and give us some time to think this out, because, as the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said, there is more to it than just the problem brought forward in the Bill. I hope he will do that, because I think to negative

97
the Bill with no assurance of that kind would create great difficulty.
7.25 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I did not put my name on the list of speakers, but I am tempted to say one or two brief words in this debate because about 45 years ago I did buy a village school.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, the noble Lord has trumped us all by having bought a school himself.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I did. I was a gracious kind of squire in the village and I thought it my public duty to buy the school. We are talking about village life. There is a grave danger that many of our villages in many parts of the country are dying. I think the villages play a very big part in the salvation of our national sanity. As your Lordships are aware, I have spent most of my working life on newspapers, and I thought it desirable, in order to balance the sanity of my outlook, that I should go to live in a village. So I bought the old rectory, I bought the village school, and I indulged myself on my days off—in those days I was working at nights—by following the local hounds. And a good time was had by all. Of course, when I left the village I sold the school—though I sincerely hope that does not convert me into a property speculator.
One aspect of this debate has been that we have tended to get tied up in technicalities. I hope that we can brush those aside for the moment, leaving them to be ironed out in the Committee stage, and consider just the main central essentials of the Bill. We all know that big reorganisations are taking place in education. We know that more and more of the village children are being conveyed by buses, or otherwise, into centralised schools and that more and more of the village schools are closing down. I do not want to see these old village schools murdered. They really are the central focal point of the village. One noble Lord has spoken about the women's institute, men's clubs, billiard tables and so on; and life in some of these remote villages can indeed be very dull unless there is a central place to which husbands and wives, sons and daughters, can go in the evenings—the church sewing class,
98
the women's institute, boy scouts, girl guides and similar organisations.
The right reverend Prelate, whose speech was, if I may say so, admirable, but nevertheless filled with technicalities, suggested that there were other possibilities open to us apart from the one proposed in the Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. This is not only a Church matter. There are other interests involved, apart from the diocesan finance authorities. There are private foundations, the loyal villagers in olden days who thought the school was necessary, and in some cases the local education authority. Although the Bill talks about the sale of these schools to representatives of the local community, and although some doubt has been cast upon the vagueness of that expression, I do not think that need worry us unduly. It is something we can straighten out in Committee. It may very well be that a group of "well-heeled" ladies and gentlemen in the village will put up the money. It may be that the local authority will purchase it and turn the premises over for use as a community centre. But I feel that this Bill is aimed at, even if it does not hit the target, bringing alive some of our villages which are under threat of dying. And I hope that as such we shall give it a Second Reading this afternoon and then go into further details at the Committee stage.
7.30 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I am glad to start by joining other noble Lords in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans, on his maiden speech. I am particularly glad to do that to the Vice-Principal of my old college and the Bishop of my old diocese.
The Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, is concerned with a fairly narrow point of charity and education law, but Lord Clifford himself, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, are rightly and properly concerned, as I am, with the importance of conserving much-cherished centres of village life when old Victorian church schools cease to be needed for education. In a moment I shall come to the Bill, but I should like to deal first with

99
this broad and important issue. I apologise in advance if this speech, which must be fairly lengthy, goes on rather longer than I should have liked in order that I may deal thoroughly with this question.
My right honourable friend and I are of course aware of the central part played by village schools in the fabric and social life of villages. A number of local authorities with responsibility for large numbers of rural schools have given fresh consideration to their policy, particularly since the publication in 1967 of the Report of Lady Plowden's Committee, Children and their Primary Schools. That Report has given further impetus to the three-tier organisation of education into first, middle and high school, instead of the traditional division into primary and secondary. There may well be cases where the village school can be retained as a first school For children from the age of five to eight or nine, possibly with nursery provision, while older children are taken to middle school providing more opportunities than could be given them in a small village school. One of the counties which has produced a report on this matter and this development is Devon, and I should like to quote to your Lordships what the Devon report said about primary schools:
"The small school for 25–35 children, with its two classes each of 12–17, allows a maximum of individual attention, and if regarded purely as an establishment for the traditional teaching of the three Rs it has certain (if expensive) advantages."
But, my Lords, the aims and methods of modern primary education go far beyond this. There has been and still is, a trend, with which many of us are familiar, in teaching away from direct and regimented instruction towards teaching techniques of discovery and development designed to develop the child's interest and understanding through his own efforts involving the use of books and apparatus on a much larger scale than hitherto. Cultural activities such as music and drama, physical education and games; new developments such as the teaching of science (and sometimes French), and the new approach to mathematics, are all more satisfactorily organised with larger numbers and in classes with smaller age ranges. It is uneconomic to attempt to do any of that in a small village school, and this is what
100
in the first case leads to proposals for their closure.
Nevertheless, to quote further from the Devon report:
"Where it is appropriate the building which is vacated when a small school is closed should be made available for local use as a village hall and centre."
I think that most of us would agree with that comment. I would add to this that the framework of the law certainly secures that no Church school of the kind we have been discussing can be closed without proper deliberation by all concerned at every level. Section 13 of the 1944 Act requires the proposal for closure to be advertised by the local education authority, and provides a period for objections to be lodged. It also requires the Secretary of State, before any decision is taken, to weigh all the relevant facts.
I would assure your Lordships at once that all those facts and objections are weighed, and when decisions to close village schools are taken they are not taken solely on narrow educational or economic considerations.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I should like to be quite clear on this point. Is the Minister saying that objections can be made other than to a Section 13 notice? We need to be clear on this.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was saying that objections are provided for in the operation of a Section 13 notice. All that I was saying was in the context of Section 13. Old Victorian school premises are not by any means all suitable for use as community centres. The cost of renovation and of improvements needed to provide a standard of accommodation suited to present day needs may well make the project more costly than a new purpose built centre, although I entirely agree that in places like Ideford there is always a deeply rooted, natural, sentimental attachment to the old village school, and when it is no longer required as a school the local community naturally wish to acquire it so that it continues to be used as a centre for village activities. That is all fully agreed, and indeed endorsed.
My right honourable friend and I are fully aware of the important part played by village halls and community centres in the social, cultural, and recreational life of any community, particularly a village

101
community which does not have access to facilities available to those of us who live in towns. Furthermore, our Department is empowered to make grants towards the capital cost of the voluntary provision of this nature and in fact made allocations of grants totalling £900,000 in 1972–73 and nearly £1½ million in 1973–74.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but what was that grant for?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it is in support of the capital cost of voluntary provision of the kind that we are talking about.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am being stupid. Is this a grant towards the purchase of the property when it is available for sale?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords, I am coming to the actual Bill itself. What I am doing, because I thought that the current of the debate had indicated that it was important for me to do it, is to reiterate the importance that the Department, and my right honourable friend, attach to the continuance of centres for village life; church schools, while they are in existence, or other centres if they have to be provided. Your Lordships will know that under the present grant arrangements, which have been in operation since 1972, any local voluntary organisation wishing to purchase a site for a village hall or community centre, or to acquire an existing building for such a purpose, may apply to the local education authority and other local authorities for the area for assistance towards the cost of purchase and building work. It is the responsibility of the local education authority to select the projects to be assisted. The local organisation need not have to meet more than 25 per cent. of the total cost and, within the resources made available to it by Parliament, my Department is prepared to make a grant up to a maximum of 50 per cent. of the total cost. Your Lordships will see, therefore, that we have powers to help in this field, and we make good use of them year by year to provide good centres of village life.
So much for the broader issue of retaining old and providing new centres for village life, and the framework of
102
the law under which they may be either conserved or provided. Now I shall turn to the legal issues that arise in respect of the noble Lord's Bill itself. I would admit, before doing so, and confirm that this is not a field in which either the Department of Education and Science or the diocese want to find themselves cast in the role of Shylock, sticking firmly and strictly to the legal letter of the law. The apparent intention of the Bill we have before us is confined to schemes made under the Endowed Schools Acts as extended by Section 86 of the Education Act 1944 between April, 1945, (when Section 86 came into force), and April 18, 1973 (when Section 86 was repealed along with the Endowed Schools Acts).
I would remind your Lordships that all schemes made under these provisions have three things in common. They are concerned with endowments for the provision of religious education in voluntary schools, mainly those of the Church of England. They appoint the appropriate diocesan authority as trustee of those endowments, to be applied for the purposes of the schools so long as the schools are maintained by the local educacation authority, and afterwards to seal the land and other property comprising the endowments and to apply the proceeds of sale to the provision, enlargement and improvement of aided schools in the diocese. That is the law.
Thirdly, schemes are made by order in council after a procedure which permits the submission of objections and suggestions to the Department after publication of the scheme in draft and the submission of petitions of objection to Parliament after the subsequent publication of the scheme itself. That is the procedure.
I come to the reason for this Section. Almost all these schemes relate to Church of England endowments, and Section 86 was in fact designed to deal with Church of England endowments. The reason is that the great bulk of church schools provided by the Church of England in the 19th century were provided on trusts restricted to the particular village or parish in which the school was situated; and under the Charitable Trusts Acts (which applied to them until the enactment of the Charities Act 1960) on the closure of the village school, their endowments would have to be applied in the village or parish for other purposes

103
of religious education. In practice, my Lords, this meant that endowments hitherto applicable within the maintained sector of education were lost to that sector and applied for the benefit of village Sunday schools and the like.
Section 86 was specifically designed to enable the Church of England to deploy these endowments, hitherto restricted to one locality and to the teaching of religious knowledge, throughout the main sector over the whole of each diocese, and was part of the general arrangement made by the Act in 1944 for the provision of denominational education in the maintained sector. This specific provision was endorsed by Parliament as recently as last year, in Section 2 of the Education Act 1973. Your Lordships will readily appreciate from what I have said that Section 86 made a very limited exception to the ordinary law of charity then embodied in the Charitable Trusts Acts. Under that law a trust for the provision of religious education in a particular area had to be applied in perpetuity for the purposes of religious education in that locality. Section 86, as it was in practice applied by the Department, simply extended the geographical area within which the particular endowment was applicable. It did not alter in any way the essential purposes to which the endowment has to be applied. In this respect it left unchanged (and I think it is important to remember this) the fundamental principles of the law of charity under which a trust for religious purposes must not be diverted to purposes which are not religious and trusts for educational purposes must not be diverted to purposes which are not educational.
Now, my Lords, the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, adds a proviso to paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the Education Act 1973. That paragraph contained transitional provisions dealing with the schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts 1869 to 1948 which had been made by the Secretary of State but not yet approved by the Queen in Council when those Acts were repealed on April 18, 1973. In the event no schemes under those Acts had reached that stage when the Acts were repealed. As a result, paragraph 2(1) is without content; and I must make it
104
clear to your Lordships that the Bill before the House is now completely without effect.
Having said that, my Lords—and I have been speaking strictly of the legal position—I should like to consider more fully the proposition which the noble Lord had in mind in promoting this Bill. This is that where the local community have contributed towards an endowment to which one of these schemes have applied, representatives of the community should have the right to purchase the property comprised in it at a price which reflects that contribution. First, my Lords, I share the doubts of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans and my noble friend Lord Amory about whether this proposition would be workable. Granted that many of the schools held on these trusts were built with the assistance of public contributions, how does one now distinguish between a contribution by the community and a subscription made on a personal basis by an individual who lived in the area? Nor is it clear how the amount of these contributions is to be determined after this lapse of time—many of these schools were built more than 100 years ago and we certainly have no record in the Department of the amount of public subscriptions made towards the buildings. Even if these difficulties could be overcome, it is not easy to see on what principle the market price which the diocesan board would expect to get for the property now ought to be diminished, particularly when one bears in mind the fact that many of these schools will have been maintained for over 40 years as non-provided schools, for nearly 30 years since then as controlled schools and in all cases for the last seven years at the expense of the ratepayers of the whole county.
Quite apart from these practical difficulties there are objections of principle to the concept of the Bill. The Bill infringes the fundamental principle of the law of charity already referred to. In so far as it requires a deduction to be made from the true value of the property, it diverts a sum equivalent to that deduction from the purposes of religious education for which it is properly held, to secular, non-educational purposes. The Bill offends also against the principle embodied in Section 86 of the Education Act 1944

105
and endorsed by Parliament as recently as last year, that the endowments now vested in the public system of education should be retained within that system.
There are also difficulties of application at Ideford itself. I am aware that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, has the specific case of Ideford in mind to-day. We should therefore ask how the principle involved in the Bill could be applied on a sale of the site and buildings. We do not know how much, in terms of money, has been contributed by the inhabitants or former inhabitants of the village; we do know that they must be taken to have made their donations for the purposes of a school in which education is provided in accordance with the doctrines of the Established Church; and we do know that for rather more than 70 years of the 120-odd years in which the school has been in existence, the cost of maintaining it has been borne out of the rates.
We now come to the particular scheme under Section 86 of the Education Act 1944 which has regulated the foundation since 1950. That is five years after the war ended and after about three years of discussion. That particular scheme was published in draft in 1949 and copies of it were sent to the rector, the head teacher and the local education authority. In addition, notices of the intention to introduce the scheme were published by the local authorities, including the urban district of Newton Abbot, and in local and national newspapers. As regards this particular school, no representation was made to the Ministry of Education.
The whole scheme, revised in the light of such representations as were made about another part of it was settled in 1950, when it was published again and advertised again. The statutory provisions relating to the scheme enabled petitions to be presented to Parliament, both on the merits and on the law. Again, not one representation was made about this particular village school. So when the scheme was finally approved by Her Majesty in Council, the Department had no reason for thinking that there was any local opposition to it. At the same time as the scheme was introduced, an Order was made also under Section 86, which had the effect of barring the reverter of the land to the estate of the original donor (no claim having been made to the land on behalf of that estate). The claim
106
on behalf of the successor in title of the original grant law at this point could have prevented the site from passing into the hands of the diocesan authorities at the closing of the school but none was put forward.
While I think the situation at Ideford is therefore closed, I should mention that as we understand it the county council have indicated that if the representatives of the local community cannot raise sufficient money to buy the present school site and buildings the authority might be prepared to lease an adjoining piece of land, on which a temporary classroom has been erected, for village use. This is perhaps the most hopeful line to pursue in this particular case, though it is not for me to intervene more than that in the affairs—
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I am afraid the noble Lord has been misinformed. The land to which he is referring and the temporary classroom which was erected thereon do not belong either to what was the school or to the county council, they belong to a doctor. If this school is sold there is no way to get to that classroom except through the doctor's drive. It is a very small drive and he already has a notice in front of it saying, "Keep Clear", because he has to go in and out. I am afraid that that offer does not hold good.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was just about to say that I cannot get involved in the affairs of the county council or the Exeter diocese or Ideford village, but that is what I was advised was a possibility. I should like now, and I hope fairly briefly, to say more about the way forward on the general issues that this debate has so usefully raised. Section 2 of the Education Act 1973 reproduces the substance of the old law in the way in which it was in practice applied, by which I mean that it contains specific powers in place of the general powers which were narrowly exercised. In particular, it contains a specific power to divide a foundation between purposes "in connection with voluntary schools" and purposes "in other ways related to the locality served or formerly served" by the school. But in both cases of course the purposes must be
"purposes in connection with the provision of religious education in accordance with the tenets of the denomination concerned".

107
It must be conceded—and the right reverend Prelate has already done this—that in the days immediately following the enactment of Section 86 of the Education Act 1944 schemes were made which paid far too little regard to the local village interests in comparison with the wider diocesan interests of denominational education. But the practice, which this provision in Section 2 now expressly recognises, has been for some years to give more weight to those local interests and that I am sure your Lordships all hope is a trend which will continue and your Lordships will, like me, be glad to have heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans express the same hope that that is the way things will go. This dividing is done by dividing the realised assets of the endowment as between what may be called the diocesan and the parish or local village interest.
The exact proportions in which this division is made must depend upon all the facts of the particular case. As a general rule the practice has been to divide on an 11/14ths: 3/14ths basis, on the footing that the local interests had the use of the premises for 3/14th of the week—Saturday afternoon and the whole of Sunday. But this is simply a rough and ready rule not enshrined in the law but which is subject to variation depending on the particular facts of each case, and that is where there is scope for further consideration.
It would not be right for me to give any undertaking about the way in which this power would be exercised in the future beyond saying that every case will be considered carefully on its individual merits and that the diocese for their part, and the Department for its part, would not be unsympathetic to the representations made on behalf of local and village interests. But, of course, the more money that is set aside for these interests, the less will be available to the denominations for the provision of denominational education in the schools of the diocese in the maintained sector.
Thus, there are now three ways in which we might consider proceeding (and I apologise for the length of this speech). First, your Lordships might decide to assist the Bill put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. But, as I have explained, this would achieve
108
nothing since the Bill is completely without effect, and I do not believe that it could be modified at Committee or at any other stage to make it effective. Alternatively, the House might feel, as my noble friends Lord Derwent and Lord Amory clearly felt, that legislation is required to make a more fundamental change in the central principle governing the law of charities. As the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans said, this would have far-reaching effects and might well arouse no little controversy since it would necessitate major changes in the settlement between the Church and the State reached in 1944 and subsequently reaffirmed. But it could be done.
But there is a third possibility, my Lords, and that I would commend to your Lordships' attention—not least because it is the one that is possible within the existing legislative and administrative framework. First of all, public-spirited successors in title of the original grantors could, if vigilant in the exercise of their rights when applicable under the School Sites Act re-apply the school and site when it reverts to them to community purposes. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, it was more a twelve-year delay in making that claim that caused the uncertainty than any other factor. But I will go into that with the noble Lord by correspondence if I may and on some other occasion.
Then there are the several constructive proposals made during the debate, and finally, the following one: that the school site, such as the one the noble Lord has in mind which does not revert, should first be sold in the open market as prescribed by existing law. If there were general agreement, it would then be open to the different parties involved to divide the foundation between the diocese and the local village interests and the way that is done is as I have said, valuable. This could be on the basis normally agreed, but there is scope, where all parities are agreeable, for changing the division of the proceeds in favour of the local interests. Should a division be made in this way, it might then be possible for the local trustees, in co-operation with other local interests, to apply for grant aid from the local education authority and subsequently from my Department either for the purchase of premises for the continued educational and community

109
life of the village or for the construction of a new village centre of this kind. It would be wrong for me to leave the impression that there will not be many procedural and administrative hurdles to overcome, but this is a direction in which those involved in fostering the life of rural communities might well consider looking.
I must, however, emphasise that the initiative for such a course of action would have to spring from the village, the county and the diocese. I am sure your Lordships would agree that this is not a job which could be undertaken solely by a central Government. But we should be glad to play our part in fostering developments such as this. By offering a suggestion which I hope will be considered constructive both by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and by my right reverend friend, I hope to convince the House that of the courses of action I have outlined this last has the most to offer. It is for this reason that I must ask the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, to withdraw his Bill which, as I have said, is not effective, and I very much hope that he will do so. If he does not do so, I recommend that the House oppose it bearing in mind, however, the assurances I have given about other, and I believe better, ways forward.
7.59 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I should like first of all to congratulate the right reverend Prelate on his maiden speech. I hope we will hear him often, but that when we hear him in future it will not be on a subject such as this, in regard to which I disagreed with practically everything he said. He made the point, in talking about those of us who consider that we own this property already—before it was "legalised robbery by the Government", to quote more than one noble Lord this evening—that we could buy it. We call that bidding for one's own heritage—or that is what one of the newspapers said. He suggested that the donors or their descendants who are still there do not know was was intended. I have the list of the donors. I have what they subscribed although the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, "Oh no, there is no way of finding these things out". An argument such as that is beside the point.
110
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked how we kept the hall going. We have done it by means of a local committee which was formed many years ago, but which has been resuscitated since the school stopped operating. Two ladies who live in the council houses at the rear keep it clean, and it is well maintained. There has been no question of the Diocesan Board of Finance spending any money at all on the place, although the local education authority have done so since they took it over. The main point which I should like to make in answer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is that we have explored every means. We have an honorary solicitor, who was here earlier, who has taken counsel's opinion at his own expense and who has suggested a whole lot of steps which we should, or should not, have taken. I find any suggestion to the contrary somewhat irritating.
The expense to small communities of fighting cases such as this has been underlined. We in Devon well know the reputation for village hall speeches of my noble friend Lord Amory, who has now left, especially speeches to young farmers' clubs. The main point is that this is our only centre. I know of other places where there is an extra hall, but here we have no other meeting place. The pub holds only seven, which is not much use for the Women's Institute. This village centre is in danger of being lost. We have stopped that happening for a second time, and the rural district council has stopped the planning permission which is necessary before it can be sold and its use transferred from a hall to a dwelling. But we are now right at the last gasp and all that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, can offer is a lengthy procedure from which we might eventually get something, by which time we shall have lost our centre, and I dare say that a lot of other villages will have lost their centres.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans believe in the efficacy of prayer. I have it on good authority that at this very moment, not one hundred yards from the hall which we have been discussing, prayers are being offered for the saving of the centre. They are praying that the noble Lord and the Lord Almighty will

111
react identically this day. However, from what I have heard from the noble Lord this evening, that is not to be the case. I admit that this Bill may not be a good one, but there has been no definite offer of any way of saving the hall. Therefore, I have no inclination to withdraw my Motion for the Second Reading and, indeed, I feel that if I did beg leave to withdraw the Motion the House would not let me do so.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CHARLWOOD AND HORLEY BILL
8.5 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill deals with a unique boundary issue which stems from the Local Government Act 1972. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment indicated when he introduced this Bill in another place, it raises no issue of local government principle; it is simply a question of the Government carrying out a pledge to the people of the parishes of Charlwood and Holley. The villages of Charlwood and Holley lie immediately to the north of Gatwick Airport, which is itself contained in Charlwood parish. Immediately to the south of the airport is the substantial urban growth area of Crawley New Town and beyond. Economic growth and urban development is also taking place in the Horley area. The existing county boundary runs between Gatwick and Crawley. So the whole of Horley and Charlwood are at present in Surrey.
When my right honourable and honourable friends came to consider this area in the context of the reorganisation of local government they considered that because of the links to the south it was essential to move Gatwick airport from Surrey into West Sussex. It also made sense to move Holley (17,000 people) and Charlwood village (about 1,000) into Sussex with the airport, and it was so provided in the Local Government Bill. This had the effect of bringing the whole growth area under a single strategic planning authority—West
112
Sussex County Council. There was, however, strong local feeling that Horley should stay in Surrey, even if it was therefore separated from Gatwick. So an undertaking was given in Committee in another place that if there were an overwhelming expression of opinion by the people of Horley that they should stay in Surrey, even though it meant being separated from the airport, they would be allowed to do so. A similar assurance was given to the people of Charlwood village, which adjoins the airport. Though on the merits of the case it was felt that both parishes belonged in Sussex, the case was sufficiently evenly balanced for the local view to be decisive. The new district structure would be viable on whichever side of the border were the people concerned.
But the Surrey interests pursued their battle to retain the airport, as well as Horley and Charlwood, right up to Committee stage in your Lordships' House, as was open to them, instead of arranging for a poll of public opinion upon the separation of Horley and Charlwood from the airport. They were once again defeated. It was only at that stage, after the issue of the airport had finally been decided, that the local people were really faced with the choice between their county loyalty and their links with Gatwick. A parish meeting followed by a parish poll were held straight away in Horley, and this poll showed a heavy majority of those voting in favour of the area staying in Surrey. Charlwood also pronounced in favour of staying in Surrey. But by this time it was the end of October and the Bill had received Royal Assent. It was thus too late to give effect to the undertakings by a simple amendment of the Local Government Bill, as had been contemplated. This is what makes the case unique, in that a parish poll could not be held until it was quite clear that Gatwick was going to Sussex, so that the residents were directly faced with the dilemma that they could either stay with Surrey or stay with the airport, but not both. And by the time the poll was held the Local Government Bill had been enacted.
There is no other case in which the Government gave assurances, as was done here, and were then unable to give effect to them in the Local Government Bill itself. I would emphasise, that it is this

113
inability to carry out, within the Local Government Act itself, an undertaking given in good faith, which has led to the Bill which is now before your Lordships. After Royal Assent to the Local Government Bill, there were then two possible further courses of action open. The obvious course was to employ the permanent procedure under the 1972 Act for the Local Government Boundary Commission to review the boundaries. But no change under this procedure could be brought into effect by the reorganisation date of April 1, 1974. So the area, involving nearly 20,000 people, would have had to move into West Sussex on April 1, 1974, and then move back again into Surrey later. Apart from all the administrative disruption that this would cause, it would involve considerable personal difficulties for the local authority staff serving the area. During the summer Recess the local authorities concerned on both sides of the county boundary came together and presented agreed proposals for a new county boundary. This new boundary would leave the airport in West Sussex but transfer almost all the inhabited parts of Charlwood and Horley, about 18,000 people on the northern side of the airport, back into Surrey. I think I should emphasise that this boundary was agreed by representatives of all the local authorities involved at county, district and parish level. We have accepted their proposals, and they are embodied in this Bill. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Baroness Young.)
8.12 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I should like to express thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the exposition she has given as to the contents and purposes of this Bill. She has, indeed, with brevity, explained the background. I think it right and proper that what she said should be placed on the Record because this is quite a unique Bill. I give it a warm welcome. As she said, it represents the fulfilment of promises given earlier. I think those of your Lordships who have followed this matter will appreciate that some of us felt a long time ago that it was not a matter that ought to be left to be dealt with by the Local Government Boundary Commission; and, indeed, we had something
114
to say about that. I think it is a pity that we did not have the Bill earlier: it might have avoided some of the difficulties that the Government have met in another place. But we have it, and we are grateful. Those of us who live in Surrey—and I think I can speak on behalf of the county council—are grateful that the Bill has passed through the other place and has now been brought before your Lordships' House. I should like to express the hope that in future Surrey will show that it has learned the lesson, and that if it wants to protect its territory it is not going to succeed by the kind of defensive action that it put up in regard to the area of Surrey under the Local Government Reorganisation Bill. I think it will have to show that it is on the attack. I should have liked to have seen Crawley brought into Surrey; it would have made much greater sense. I still feel that the taking away of Gatwick from Surrey was and is inexcusable. But there it is; what has happened is past and is now history.
This evening I have received confirmation that what is proposed in this Bill undoubtedly accords with the views of all the local authorities concerned at county and at district level, and certainly it conforms to the wishes of the majority of those who took advantage of the poll to which the noble Baroness referred. From this side we shall do everything we possiby can to hasten this Bill. The quicker it is on the Statute Book the better. There is great need of urgency if we are to have regard to the wellbeing of local government in the area.
8.14 p.m.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, may I make it quite clear that there is a totally bi-partisan approach to this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has supported it, and I, too, as I know this area very well, would like to support it. I think the Government, and indeed the Minister who made the pledge, are warmly to be congratulated on the implementation of that pledge. I cannot help thinking, with great respect to Mr. Graham Page, who made the pledge, that if he had realised that it would involve legislation he might have thought twice before giving it. But I am delighted he gave it, and I congratulate all those concerned on having implemented it.

115
I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that half a loaf is better than none. Charlwood and Honey remain in Surrey. On that point there should not have been any question. To anybody who knows the area there could never have been any question of their being separated from Surrey. My only feeling is of deep regret that the mistake was made of transferring Gatwick to West Sussex by those who, quite frankly, cannot have known the area and the implications.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, for the welcome that they have given to this Bill. I think it is important that agreement on this matter has been reached between everyone concerned, and I am very glad to have had the confirmation from the noble Lord. Lord Garnsworthy, that everybody at county, district and parish level is agreed. I am grateful for the welcome that the Bill has received.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL [H.L.]
8.16 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Young.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Champion in the Chair.]
Clause 28 [Reference to Secretary of State of certain applications for consent]:
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD ABERDARE)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD ABERDARE) moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 38, line 46, after ("held") insert ("in pursuance of section 85 of this Act")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move this Amendment, which makes it clear
116
that any public local inquiry held into an application for consent to make a discharge which is called in by the Secretary of State will be governed by the general arrangements for inquiries which are set out in Clause 85. I beg to move.
8.18 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 148B:
Page 39, line 9, at end insert ("and to notify the applicant, the authority and any person who made written representations of his decision and of the reason for it")
The noble Baroness said: As I think is plain from the Amendment, the real point of this is to ensure that if a case is called in and the Secretary of State makes a determination on it then the reason shall be given not only to the applicant and to the authority but also to any person who made written representations. When we were discussing this at our last sitting the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, made clear that under Clause 28 he would not expect that the Secretary of State would avail himself frequently of the power to call in an application for consent.
The noble Lord went on to say:
"We expect that it would be used relatively rarely only when a particular application raises important new issues of principle or issues of national importance wider than the competence of a single water authority to decide."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24/1/74, col. 1696.]
If this is so, then it seems to us that it is of particular importance that any person or organisation with a close interest in such matters should be able to obtain not merely the decision, which would presumably be a public matter anyway, but also the reasons for it. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I can give the noble Baroness the assurance she seeks, particularly because this is the established way of behaving in the case of planning decisions. These will be fairly rare cases, as I indicated—and the noble Baroness has quoted from what I said—but certainly what would normally happen would be that the Secretary of State would write to the water authority conveying his decision, giving the reasons for it and his direction as to whether they are to grant or refuse the application. Normally he would send copies of the letter to the applicant and to anybody who had made substantial representations at

117
the inquiry, if there had been an inquiry, or, if there had not, to those who had represented to him in writing. I hope that the noble Baroness does not feel it necessary to include a specific reference to this in the Bill. As I say, it has never been considered necessary in legislation dealing with planning decisions. There is also the difficulty that on occasions something is done without specific legislative requirement and it may be undesirable to make it mandatory because of the possible implication that it need not be done where it is not specifically required. But I can assure the noble Baroness that this will be the normal procedure that will be followed.
BARONESS WHITE: In the light of those assurances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.22 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved Amendment No. 148D:
Page 39, line 11, at end insert—
("( ) If the Secretary of State causes a local inquiry to be held under the provisions of subsection (2) of this section he may require the water authority or the applicant if he is the person who requested the inquiry to deposit such a sum of money as the Secretary of State may think fit; and if he is satisfied after the inquiry that any person or persons taking part has or have been necessarily put to expense for the proper explanation of the matters in issue, he may direct that part or all of the sum so deposited may be applied towards such expense.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is perfectly simple. We are becoming increasingly accustomed to local inquiries into all problems of controversy arising in all sorts of matters of local administration. In this clause it is provided in subsection (2) that,
" … the Secretary of State may if he thinks fit, and shall if a request to be heard with respect to the application is made … by the applicant or the authority, cause a local inquiry to be held. …"
The effect of having a local inquiry is to throw a very considerable burden of expenditure on people concerned who wish either to oppose or secure some substantial amendment in the Order. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that those who have called for the public inquiry to be held should deposit a sum of money out of which those who have been put to expense as a result of the
118
proceedings at the inquiry may be reimbursed either the whole or part of their expenses. I think that a very reasonable proposal to make.
We are all committed to the idea of participation. The increasing approval by Parliament and local authorities of local inquiries is due to the fact that we all wish that local people who are affected should be able to make their representations heard. That is why I have put down this Amendment. I hope the Committee will not think that the two cases to which I shall refer are irrelevant because, although they do not bear on water legislation, they deal with exactly this kind of matter. The First Report of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation which was ordered by your Lordships to be printed on July 23 last year referred to the great burden of expenditure which is imposed upon petitioners against Special Procedure Orders. At page 15 of their Report they say:
"Your Committee think that consideration might be given at least to the question whether a large share of the cost or indeed the whole of the cost of the transcript should be borne by the promoters or by Parliament or be shared between them. It appears that the only way in which the expense of employing counsel and agents can be reduced would be by providing some form of financial aid to petitioners similar to the legal aid which is granted in respect of court proceedings."
That is not exactly in point in this Bill, but it is an illustration of what a Joint Committee of both Houses thought necessary in order that people concerned with these inquiries should not be expected to bear the whole of the cost of being represented at the inquiry.
I had thought that my noble friend Lord Sandford might be replying, in which case I should have said that what I am going to put forward now is an argumentum ad hominem or perhaps an argumentum ad dominum. I raised with him in correspondence on July 19 the question of an amenity society's costs at public inquiries and pointed out that amenity societies and persons who are, or think themselves to be, adversely affected by proposals are put to very heavy expense in being adequately represented. In his reply dated July 7, 1971, he said this:
"You are perfectly right; the existing powers in Section 290(5) of the Local Government Act 1933 enable the Secretary of State to make orders as to costs in respect of any parties at

119
a statutory inquiry. This, of course, would include third parties in general and amenity societies in particular."
That was the general proposition which he made. He went on to give what I thought were good reasons why it has been very rare that costs have been awarded under this provision—though naturally, I shall not weary the Committee with a long and complicated argument. But here is a definite statement that under the Local Government Act 1933 the Secretary of State can make orders as to costs in respect of any parties at a statutory inquiry. This burden is a very serious one, and when we are legislating for the future about water and there is this special provision for local inquiries which could be called on as of right by the water authority, who are people of substance, I think it is reasonable that we should incorporate in the Bill a provision which in suitable cases would enable persons affected by local inquiries to have their expenses refunded.
BARONESS WHITE: I wish warmly to support the Amendment. On two occasions in the last couple of years I have raised in your Lordships' House this question of the costs of those appearing at public inquiries. The more recent one was in connection with the hydroelectric scheme in Snowdonia. Prior to that we had the Anglesey Marine Terminal Bill, which brought considerable expense to the local community, particularly because immediately thereafter there was a major public inquiry into the landward arrangements for that marine terminal. I have also raised with the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees the point from the Report of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Molson. That is a separate matter. It is a question of the cost of the transcript, which in the case of a local inquiry is not provided except at private expense. I regard that as monstrous.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, was absolutely right to raise this question on this Bill. If we are to have these inquiries, as I reminded the Committee a little while ago, according to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, these hearings would be inquiring into matters of more than local interest: they would undoubtedly have some national importence, so that in a situation of that kind
120
major amenity interests would wish to make their views known. It seems to me wrong that they should not be in a position to receive any assistance at all. Whether the proposal here is one which will commend itself to the Government, I do not know; but if the existing legislation, dating I think from 1933, is hardly ever used, it appears that there is a good case for finding some other method of seeing that some contribution is made towards the costs of those who are performing a public duty. One would not suggest that the entire cost should be met—I think that would be improper—but it is in the public interest that such people are acting, and not for personal profit or gain. Therefore I hope that this Amendment, or something like it, will find favour with the Government and that we shall be able to set some kind of precedent in this Bill for meeting at least a proportion of the expenses of those concerned with the protection of the environment. And, after all, we are told that that is the purpose of the Bill.
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like to support what has been said by the last two speakers. Even if my noble friend the Minister does not feel (and I fear he may not) that so major a project should be launched in this Bill, the Amendment gives the Government notice that this is a very serious point and that if we do not get our way to-day this is something which I am sure we shall all be urging the Government to tackle in the immediate future.
8.33 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I take to heart what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and by my noble friend Lord Craigton; but I think it is evident that this raises an issue of very general importance and one which is by no means confined to this particular Bill. In fact, as my noble friend has anticipated, I would argue that it would not be at all appropriate to include in this Bill a provision of this sort. It raises issues of what happens under our Special Orders Procedure, what happens with Private Bills and in the case of planning inquiries, where all these considerations are equally evident. Nor, I think, is it particularly appropriate to this Bill, because in the particular instance we are discussing it is the Secretary of State who has called in

121
the application, and therefore if one were to be logical about it it is probably the Secretary of State who ought to foot the bill or contribute to the costs incurred by the people objecting. It is not really the water authority, nor the applicants, although of course it is they who have the right to demand a public inquiry once the application has been called in by the Secretary of State.
Another point which is worth making is that although an inquiry of this sort can involve many technical matters, and people who wish to object might find themselves incurring heavy expenses, it would not, I think, be quite so important in the case of these inquiries, because the water authority are there to consider and put the case for maintaining and restoring the wholesomeness of the water for which they are responsible. That is their statutory duty, and they have the technical expertise necessary to help in such cases.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, made one or two particular points. He mentioned the cost of the transcript. Of course, in the sort of inquiries referred to in this Bill the place of the transcript is taken by the inspector's report, and the cost of that is borne by the Department.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but is he saying that there will be a detailed report of the actual hearing, or will it be just the conclusions of the inspector at the end of it?—because in planning inquiries all we get are the conclusions of the inspector. There is no record of what has been said.
LORD ABERDARE: No; it would be exactly the same procedure as for planning procedures; it would be the inspector's report that would be given.
BARONESS WHITE: Is there any reason why we cannot adopt the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and in this Bill at least make it possible for people putting their case to have a trans-script of the evidence at public expense? Surely that is something we ought to be able to do within this Bill.
LORD ABERDARE: I should not like to undertake that, if only because it is not what happens in the case of planning inquiries. These inquiries run side by side with planning inquiries, and I do not think it would be advisable for me to
122
undertake to do that without looking at the matter further. However, I will certainly consider the point made by the noble Baroness.
My noble friend also referred to the power to award costs in the Local Government Act. This is repeated in Section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972, which is applied to inquiries of this kind by Clause 85 of this Bill, so that in fact that power still remains available for use. The last point I should like to make to my noble friend is that in inquiries of the kind mentioned in the Bill there is no obligation to employ counsel, whereas Petitioners to Parliament are virtually compelled to do so.
LORD MOLSON: No.
LORD ABERDARE: In any case, from that point of view less expense could be involved. In general, I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend's suggestion, but I do not think it would be appropriate at this moment in this Bill, and I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I have listened with interest to the noble Lord's reply and I must say that I did not like some of his arguments very much—particularly when he said that it was unnecessary to employ counsel in these inquiries. It really is not so in the majority of them—not that I am myself at all concerned nowadays. The water authority almost certainly is bound to be legally represented; the applicant for the discharge is almost certainly bound to be legally represented also, and it really does not carry much weight when the Minister says that others who are objecting can appear on their own behalf and without legal representation. I do not think that is a very good argument. But I am delighted to hear that in appropriate cases there is power to award costs for those who appear at such local inquiries.
I cannot go with the noble Baroness in supporting her claim that transcripts should be made available. Transcripts of what is said during an inquiry which lasts for a considerable time can be extremely expensive to obtain. My experience of planning inquiries is that the inspector's report starts with a very long and accurate summary of the evidence he has heard. Provided that is given, so that it can be seen on what materials he based

123
his conclusions, I myself think that should suffice.
LORD MOLSON: I am obliged to my noble friend for his reply. This is a general issue which is going to come up more and more in the next few months and years. The fact that the Joint Committee over which my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor presided has suggested that this matter should be further looked into by another Committee, shows that we have established our case that it is intolerable that individuals and small amenity societies should be left to carry the whole of the costs of representation, whatever those may be. As my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne has said, it is true that Petitoners may appear in person if they wish to do so. But in point of fact everybody knows that when the powerful corporations on the other side employ skilled counsel and are able to call expert witnesses, and so on, it is only on the very rarest occasions that a lay individual representing himself or a small amenity society, will be able to stand up to experienced arguments of that kind.
I am grateful to my noble friend for the sympathetic tone in which he replied. I entirely agree that in this particular Amendment it would be inappropriate to take a step forward in a large and complicated matter of this kind in a single Bill of this sort. I am glad that my noble friend has replied in a sympathetic way, and I am sure that the Government will have noted the general support that has been shown for an approach which will bring some financial assistance to those people who serve the public by representing interests of this kind at public inquiries. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Provisions supplementary to ss. 27 and 28]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 148A:
Page 39, line 21, after ("Gazette,") insert ("in four successive weeks").
The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment in the names of my noble friend Lord Bledisloe
124
and myself. This is a small Amendment, and I hope it is one that the Government can swallow without any indigestion. The provisions in this clause are for making sure that those likely to be affected by a consent get notice of the application. That must be the object of the clause. If it is, I suggest it could be improved a little; to provide only for publication of the application in the London Gazette, which has not the most extensive circulation in many parts of the country, and people do not read it for light amusement, and only once in a newspaper circulating in the local area is not a sufficient advertisement to bring the matter to the attention of riparian owners, and others, who are likely to be affected.
The Amendment that I have put down is that the publication in the local newspaper should take place in four successive weeks. That provision is modelled on a provision in an Act passed more than 100 years ago, the Highways Act 1835. That provided, among other things, that in relation to any application to close a public footpath there must be publication for four successive weeks in a local newspaper. In those days I do not think people had anything like as much to read as they have at the present day. One publication in one local paper may be so easily missed. The requirement ought to be for publication in more than one issue. There is a precedent for four issues, but for the sake of peace and friendship I would settle for two issues. One really is not enough.
LORD ABERDARE: I have very great pleasure in accepting the noble and learned Viscount's compromise suggestion—two issues would be quite agreeable to me. I agree entirely with what he said: one is not sufficient. If the noble Viscount will accept an Amendment for the application to be published for two weeks in a local paper, I should be prepared to agree to that. The Amendment may need looking at; I gather that as worded it could mean that first of all we have to advertise for two weeks in a local paper, followed by an advertisement in the London Gazette. I do not see any reason why these periods should not run coterminously so that the advertisement in the London Gazette could appear at the same time as the first advertisement in the newspaper, followed a week later

125
by another one in a local newspaper. I am glad that I do not have indigestion and am able to help the noble Viscount.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: Such is my spirit of compromise, I will settle for that; I agree that the first publication of the application in the local newspaper might be at the same time as the publication in the London Gazette. As my Amendment is drafted, the advertisement in the local paper would precede an advertisement in the London Gazette. I will leave it to the noble Lord to table a suitable Amendment at Report stage and ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 148C:
Page 39, line 26, at end insert ("and in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in such areas as the Secretary of State may specify, being areas which may be affected by the proposed discharge;").
The noble and learned Viscount said: This is another narrow point, but a not unimportant one. As I understand it, the Bill provides that the advertisement should be in a paper circulating in the area where the proposed discharge will be made. The proposed discharge may affect waters a considerable distance below the point of discharge; it depends upon the nature of the discharge and its volume. The provision in the Bill does not go quite wide enough, and I have tabled this Amendment which gives a discretion to the Secretary of State. He can, if he thinks it desirable and if the matter comes to him, specify that notice should be given in areas which he thinks will be affected by the proposed discharge. This Amendment is modelled on a similar provision in the Pipelines Act 1962, in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. That is rather a good precedent for this. Again, it is to ensure that the object of this clause is achieved; that notice has a chance of reaching those to whom it is directed. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I am afraid this Amendment does give me indigestion. The problem here is one of deciding just what areas should be considered as those that would be affected by the proposed discharges. Obviously, these will be areas downstream of the point of discharge—but how far downstream must publication reach? The noble and
126
learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, recognises the problem: he provides, on the precedent of the Pipelines Act, that the Secretary of State should specify what areas should be covered. This however is hardly practicable. By the nature of the problem it would not be possible to formulate satisfactorily general rules: each discharge will be different in the distance its effect may persist. The water authority, however, can hardly come and ask the Secretary of State each time what areas are specified for each discharge.
We feel that it is sufficient to advertise locally. Most discharges, if properly controlled, should not in fact have a significant affect at a great distance downstream: the conditions attached to the consent should ensure that. Certainly people or bodies with special interests in the quality of water, whether they be fishermen or extractors of water or a society concerned with the protection of the amenities, will be able to keep a check on proposals through the publication in the London Gazette. Although the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has rightly pointed out that it does not have a great circulation, at least it is studied by those who have a particular interest. I think it would be a very difficult practical matter to try to do what the noble Viscount is suggesting. I really think that the publication in the London Gazette and the local newspaper should suffice.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I gather from what the Minister has said that the objection is to leaving it to the Secretary of State to decide in what further areas advertisements should be made. I see the force of that point. It is really not sufficient, I think, as the Bill now stands. I would ask him to consider this point. We are dealing here with an application for consent. He says that there is no need to worry because conditions will be imposed to ensure that discharges do not affect waters further down stream. We have not got to that stage. We have reached the stage of notifying people who may wish to make objections to the applications to the discharge taking place at all. That is the object, as I see it, of this clause. The imposition of conditions will come later.
Would the noble Lord consider this: that the water authority should be required to make the advertisement in a newspaper or newspapers circulated in

127
the areas below the point of discharge which they, in their discretion, think might be affected by the discharge? That again is a compromise. It is not open to the main objection to which the noble Lord referred on this Amendment. I think if he did that, it would give a wider power to the water authority and would meet the case.
LORD ABERDARE: In this atmosphere of sweet reason and light, I have no hesitation in undertaking to do that. It seems to me to be a sensible solution that it is left to the water authority to decide which newspapers would cover areas downstream of the discharge.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: It being recognised, under the wording, that if they think it is likely, if the discharge is of such volume or such character, that it will affect water a good way down, they will take this step, I shall be content. In those circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.53 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 39, line 27, leave out from second ("to") to ("each") in line 29.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 149. I would also speak to Amendments Nos. 149 and 150. The Amendment restricts the class of applications, and certain instruments of consent, to be copied and sent to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture to cases where a discharge to tidal waters or the sea is in question. The provision for copying applications was inserted at the request of the Minister of Agriculture because of his fisheries responsibilities. There is no need for this to be forwarded on applications relating to discharges in fresh water. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I think perhaps we should have a little further explanation of this Amendment. This again touches on the Dumping at Sea Bill, which I mentioned last time. We are considering that Bill again to-morrow. The argument being used on the Dumping at Sea Bill is that the Minister of Agriculture is responsible for fish; and that where one is concerned
128
with controlled waters, or the sea outside controlled waters, that is a matter for the Minister of Agriculture. I am assuming that the Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for the Environment not the Secretary of State for Scotland. If what we are dealing with is controlled waters, or the sea beyond the controlled waters, I am not quite clear why we should bring in the Secretary of State when in the Dumping at Sea Bill the Minister of Agriculture is the Minister involved. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, can explain that to me? I am also not quite clear how, under the clause that we have just passed, the Secretary of State will know whether or not there is an application which he ought to call in if he has not been informed about it?
LORD ABERDARE: The noble Baroness is a much greater expert on the Dumping at Sea Bill than I am. All I can say is that the object of this Amendment is that wherever a discharge is into tidal waters, or into the sea, those are the areas in which the Minister of Agriculture is interested by virtue of his responsibilities for the fishing industry. It is in those cases where he will receive a copy of the application; and not, as the Amendment is drafted would cause him, to have copies of applications for discharges into fresh water, which his responsibilities do not cover.
BARONESS WHITE: I quite understand that the Minister of Agriculture does not want to be bothered with all the freshwater applications over which he has no jurisdiction. What I am interested in is that in this Bill, for the controlled waters and the sea outside the controlled waters, one is joining with him the Secretary of State. I am entirely in favour of this. My difficulty is that in regard to the Dumping at Sea Bill I cannot get the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture to see the point.
LORD ABERDARE: I do not think I have very much to add. If there is anything else, perhaps I could clear it up in correspondence with the noble Baroness. I think that might be the easiest way to cover the matter.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 150.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, line 32, at end insert (", in the case of an application or instrument relating to controlled waters or an application relating to the sea outside controlled waters, to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and").—(Lord Aberdare.)
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD CHAMPION): Amendment No. 150A, Lord Boothby. If this Amendment is moved I shall have to put it as: Page 39, line 32, after the words last inserted, insert the new paragraph as printed on the Marshalled List.
8.59 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY LORD BOOTHBY moved Amendment No. 150A:
Page 39, line 32, leave out ("and") and insert—
("(c) if the place at which it is proposed in the application that discharges should be made or, as the case may be, at which discharges are the subject of consent given by instrument is within a sea fisheries district, to send a copy of the application or instrument to the local fisheries committee for that district; and").
The noble Lord said: It is quite unnecessary at this late hour of the night for me to delay your Lordships with a speech. The purpose of this Amendment is self-evident. The sea fisheries committees have played a great part in the past in the campaign against pollution. I think it would be convenient for your Lordships to combine my present Amendment with the one to come. I am anxious only for one thing, and I can express it in a sentence: that the sea fisheries committee involved in any scheme should be fully consulted before the scheme is finally approved. That is very important. I want to impress upon your Lordships that the sea fisheries committees have done very good work on pollution, that they are really essential, and that consultation with them would be essential. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I certainly agree with the noble Lord's tributes to the sea fisheries committees. But if I may say something about these two Amendments, I cannot advise the Committee to accept them, for the reasons I shall try to explain. The water authority will have a duty
130
under the clause as it stands in the Bill to advertise applications in both the London Gazette and a local newspaper, to send copies of applications to local authorities, and to send copies of applications relating to controlled waters to the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Fisheries committees will be consulted as a matter of course by the Minister about applications to discharge within their districts, and he will take account of their views on the applications. Constitutionally, sea fisheries committees are committees of the local authorities, and the local authorities, or joint committees of local authorities, are already entitled to receive copies. At least half their members are appointed by those authorities. A further member is appointed by each river authority, which in future will be the water authority, which has jurisdiction within the sea fisheries district; and the remaining members are appointed by the Minister of Agriculture who also will receive copies of applications. So the situation is that the sea fisheries committees are committees of the local authorities and all their members will have received copies of the applications in their other capacities.
We recognise the importance of pollution control to sea fishing, but we do not think that the sea fisheries committees should be given this special position. Local authorities whose committees they are, and who have a far wider interest covering amenity as well, can of course consult the committees or arrange to provide them with copies of all applications or of applications of particular kinds, if they so wish. If the sea fisheries committees consider that their parent authorities are not making sufficient use of their special knowledge, or will not press their special case sufficiently strongly, they can keep track of all applications themselves through the official gazettes. Also, of course, they will have the same rights as anyone else to inspect the full applications on the register as required under Clause 34.
However, in view of the noble Lord's deep interest in this particular subject I would say a little more about the Government's proposed arrangements to ensure that sea fish and sea fisheries are adequately protected. We intend to recommend that the water authorities

131
should work in the closest informal collaboration with the Ministry of Agriculture in administering the control of discharges to coastal and other tidal waters. We hope and expect that such collaboration will do everything that is necessary. But we have also provided a long stop. The Ministry of Agriculture are to receive copies of all applications for consent for such discharges, as I have already said, and my right honourable friend wants to make it clear that he will be ready to call in for his own decision under Clause 28 any application which the Minister of Agriculture considers it desirable to deal with in that way; and in that case my right honourable friend would expect his right honourable friend to nominate a fisheries assessor at the local inquiry which would normally follow, and they would in any case confer about the decision to be given on the application.
If we are to consider also Amendment No. 150B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, the Government do not feel that this would be right. It would give the fisheries committee a unique right which not even the applicant, and certainly not the committee's parent authorities, the local authorities, would have. In fact, we propose to end the sea fishery committee's pollution functions, by withdrawing their by-law making powers so far as these relate to pollution prevention. This will be done by the repeal in Schedule 4 to this Bill of Section 5(1)(c) of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966. Instead, the Ministry of Agriculture are to be more closely and directly concerned in this field by the administrative arrangements which I have explained. These and the Bill's own provisions will enable the committees to make representations to the water authority and to the Ministry of Agriculture, and will enable the Minister of Agriculture to ensure where necessary that an application for consent for any particular discharge is the subject of Ministerial consideration and decision. The committees themselves will of course be entitled to be heard at any local inquiry into a called-in application. So I hope the noble Lord will agree that we have made plenty of provision for sea fisheries committees to receive all the information they should have, and for them to make representations where necessary.
LORD BOOTHBY: In view of the assurances that the noble Lord has given, which are very satisfactory in all the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.5 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved Amendment No. 150H:
Page 39, line 35, leave out ("six weeks") and insert ("25 days").
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 150H. When an application is made for a water abstraction licence under the Water Resources Act 1963, 25 days, from the date on which the application was first published in the London Gazette, are allowed for representations to be made. This Amendment is designed to allow the same period for representations to be made about the discharge of used water. In practice I understand that the 25-day period has been found to be quite satisfactory for representations about an application for an abstraction licence.
There would seem to be little justification for a longer period when applications for consent to discharge have been published. A period of six weeks might cause unnecessary delay in dealing with an application. In view of the Government's undertaking in answer to the Amendment of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne—as I understand it, they have agreed to inserting in the Bill that the notice will be put in the local paper for two weeks and following that in the London Gazette—it seems to be even more important that this Amendment should be accepted; otherwise there will be a period of undue delay. I would also mention that one usually sees something in the London Gazette or in a local newspaper within a few days of its publication. One is unlikely to see it five or six weeks after. Therefore it seems to me that 25 days is quite enough. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I listened most carefully to what the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said, but he did not advance a single reason, apart from conformity with the abstraction of water notice, for reducing the time within which a possible objector can make his objection. I think that the noble Earl got it wrong about what the Minister has

133
accepted. As I understand it, the first publication in the local newspaper will take place at the same time as publication in the London Gazette and the next publication will take place a week later. If we are only to have 25 days it will give someone who has only seen the second publication in the local newspaper very little time indeed to consult with his advisers and with other interested parties as to the line he should take.
The noble Earl said that there may be a delay if people have six weeks in which to consider their position. I suggest that may not be the case and that giving them more time to consider what is proposed and what they should do about it may in fact lead to fewer objections being put forward. The noble Earl has not really advanced a single reason for cutting down the opportunities for an objector to make an objection and I hope the Government will resist this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: In this case I again agree with the noble and learned Viscount. There is really no magic about the period of six weeks but on balance we think it is the right period. It conforms to the kind of standard period which exists in other legislation for periods in which people are given time to object. It seems a fairly reasonable length of time to choose, given that the water authority has to reach a decision on the application, or at least if it does not reach a decision the application will be deemed to be refused after three months. The six weeks splits that and it is a reasonable period. For the reasons given by the noble and learned Viscount I think that the period of 25 days tends to be a bit short whereas six weeks is fair to everybody. I do not think it would result in delay, given that there is the three month period for the authority to make up its mind. So I hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I should like to have an understanding about the thinking of the Government with regard to the two weeks in the local newspaper. The announcement in the London Gazette will be at the same time as the first week's announcement in the local newspaper, I understand. If that is so, I accept what the Government have said
134
and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 150D:
Page 39, line 38, at end insert—
("(d) to give within the period of three months beginning with the date when it received the written representations, to the person who made them notice of the authority's decision with regard to the application or instrument
and if the person who made the written representations is dissatisfied with the decision, and within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which he received notice of it, requests the Secretary of State to exercise the powers conferred on him by section 28(2) of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consider the request and to notify his decision to the person who made the request;").
The noble and learned Viscount said: I think perhaps this is a more important Amendment and I hope that it will receive a favourable response. Under the clause as it stands there is first a duty on the authority to publish, and to send copies of the application to various Ministers and each local authority; and, under subsection (1)(c), to consider any representations which are received from any person
"within the period of six weeks beginning with the date on which the notice of the application or instrument is published in the London Gazette."
But the clause is silent as to what is to happen after that. The water authority considers the application; it is not required to do anything except consider it. This is quite a different point from that raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White, on Clause 28, where the Minister could give an undertaking that people would in fact be told of the Secretary of State's decision without the requirement of putting that into the Bill. But the Minister and the Secretary of State cannot give an undertaking that will bind every water authority, and with the greatest respect it seems to me that it is a defect in this Bill not to require—and it is not a heavy burden to ask them to do so—the water authority to notify its decision to any person who has objected and made representations. In support of this I may say that it has been brought to my notice that in the past those authorities which have the

135
power to grant consent caused considerable dissatisfaction by not notifying persons who had objected of the results of their consideration of the objection.
But this Amendment does not stop there. It goes wider than that, and I would ask the Committee to contrast this Amendment with the wording of Clause 30(3)(b). Clause 30, "Revocation of consents and alteration and imposition of conditions", says in subsection (3):
"… it shall be the duty of the authority … to consider the request … and any such representations and comments and, within the period of three months … to give the person who made it notice of the authority's decision with respect to the request. …"
There you have a precedent for putting on the water authority giving the consent the obligation to give the person who made the request for a review notice of the authority's decision. It seems odd to me that before the discharge takes place, when the application is there for the original consent and someone objects, the water authority need not tell the objector what it has done. Its only duty is to "consider" a request by the objector.
A year later, under Clause 30, the objector can come along to the water authority and say, "With regard to the consent you gave a year ago, I can now ask you to review it, and having had my request you are now under the duty to tell me the result of your further consideration of this matter". But it does not stop there. Your Lordships will see that subsection (3) of Clause 30 goes on:
"and if the person who made the request is dissatisfied with the decision and, within the period of twenty-eight days beginning with the day on which he received the notice of it, requests the Secretary of State to exercise with respect to the consent the powers conferred on him by the preceding subsection, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to consider the request."
So we have here an express provision whereby a riparian owner or fishery club who have suffered the effects of a discharge for a year can request a review, and if dissatisfied with the decision of the water authority in relation to their request, can get the matter considered by the Secretary of State; and it is his duty to consider the request.
What I do not understand about this Bill is why, when the question of a consent to a discharge initially is being considered, private individuals, and clubs, should not be given exactly the same rights as they will have under the Bill after suffering the discharge for a year. It seems to me very odd. When they had suffered the discharge for a year it would probably be more difficult (particularly when one looks at Clause 31; but I will not anticipate what I propose to say on that), to get the discharge varied or stopped than it would be to get the consent refused in the first place. I am not talking now about frivolous objections and stopping discharges which are necessary in the national interest. I am seeking to press the Government to give better opportunities than are now provided by this Bill for an objector to appeal from the decision of the water authority to the Secretary of State; to ask him to consider the matter, to give objectors the equivalent rights to those which they will have after a year has elapsed. Indeed, I think your Lordships will see that the last part of the Amendment No. 150D follows very closely the last part of Clause 30(3), although the powers concerned which the Secretary of State must be asked to exercise are the powers under Clause 28(2).
The Amendment I propose puts no more duty on the Secretary of State than the duty to consider the request and notify his decision to the person who made the request. If this Amendment is accepted the water authority will have to notify the objector of their decision. At present it is under no obligation to do so. If the authority grants the consent and the objector does not like it, he will be able to ask the Secretary of State to consider the matter; and the Secretary of State will then be bound to consider it and to notify his decision to the person who made the request. This seems to me an entirely reasonable Amendment. I think it is important. If the Government say that it will not do on the grounds that it goes too far, I am prepared to consider any modification. If they want the Bill to stay as it is, I hope that we shall have a satisfactory explanation of the difference in treatment between an original objector to a consent and an objector who objects after suffering the discharge for a year. I beg to move.
9.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like very strongly to support this Amendment. This is another example, as I see it, of the way in which this Bill is slanted in favour of the would-be polluter. The would-be polluter is to have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, yet the person whose water is polluted is to have none of these rights. Under Clause 30 he can take any action after his water has been polluted only after a period of a year. In that time the whole of the fish in the river may have been killed. Supposing lie is successful and the pollution is stopped, it may take years before that fishery is restored. I think this is a very important point and I ask the Government to give it very serious consideration.
LORD ABERDARE: The noble and learned Viscount's Amendment really falls into two parts. He is asking, first of all, that there should be a duty laid on the regional water authorities to inform objectors, when they make their decision, what that decision is. I must say that that seems to me to be an entirely reasonable request. I would imagine this would be an automatic action on the part of the regional water authorities. May I undertake to look into that particular point to see whether it is really necessary to put it in the Bill? I will endeavour to ensure that this does in fact happen because, as I say, it seems to me perfectly reasonable.
So far as the Amendment goes, it, unfortunately in my view, is linked with the second part of this proposal, which gives a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. We feel that this is not appropriate in the context of the present Bill. When my noble friend Lord Bledisloe asserts that the Bill is slanted in favour of a would-be polluter, we have to remember, as I have tried to point out before, that the regional water authorities themselves are slanted against a would-be polluter. They have a statutory obligation to see that the water is wholesome. They are providers of drinking water. They have a built-in slant against the polluter. That is why the present Bill is quite different from the situation that obtains at the moment. We feel that this proposal would give an inappropriate status to third parties in the procedure for considering applications.
138
To give 28 days to an objector to request the Secretary of State to intervene would delay still further a decision on the application. The call-in procedure is expected to be used only rarely to reserve cases of special importance for the Secretary of State's decision, and it is not intended as a variant on the appeal procedure, which this Amendment would make it. We feel that in most cases discretion must be given to the water authorities, who will consider such representations as are made to them and should be able to make their own decision and carry it into effect. They will be responsible public bodies with the job of controlling the whole water cycle, from supply through to effluent disposal, and of protecting and enhancing the quality of our rivers, estuaries, and coastal waters, and they should be able to consider fully, but then give the applicant an answer as quickly as is practicable. I have certainly no desire in any way to belittle the efforts of those bodies and responsible individuals who protect the cleanliness of our rivers by the means open to them, but I do not believe that it would be appropriate to give anyone with an interest, however slight, the right to delay the effect of the water authority's decision for 28 days while he considers whether he is going to appeal to the Secretary of State.
So far as the noble and learned Viscount's reference to Clause 30 is concerned, this is not a good precedent. It is a provision for a review of a discharge which damages a person who has a prescribed right. The Amendment seeks to give a right after a consent has been given by the water authority (implicitly, in view of their general duty, a consent which they consider will not lead to damage to the stream), to seek to get that consent countermanded with no further evidence that damage will be caused. I think that the two clauses are quite separate, and I cannot advise your Lordships to accept what the noble and learned Viscount is asking for, which is an appeal from the original decision of the regional water authority.
9.28 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: I am bound to say that I am disappointed by my noble friend's reply to the Amendment that has been moved. Of course we all hope that

139
the water authorities are going to discharge the responsibilities imposed upon them in this Bill extremely well, and we naturally hope that there will not be occasion for appeals to the Secretary of State. However, we have been disappointed in the past by what has happened in the case of the river authorities where the largest polluters of their rivers have been the local authority, who have a majority of representatives on the river authorities, and yet they are still going to have a majority of representatives on the water authorities.
I am not at all convinced that there is to be a complete change, and that a cleaning up of our rivers, which has not proceeded at the speed that Parliament hoped in the past, will necessarily be speeded up to the necessary extent in the future. I should have thought that it was extremely desirable that persons who are dissatisfied with the consents given by the water authorities should have a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. If the Government feel that the Amendment is too wide—I am not quite sure of my noble friend's words, but he said something about appealing to the Secretary of State about some minor pollution—I am sure that that could be taken care of. There may be really serious pollution to which consent is given by the water authorities, and it is most unsatisfactory that there should not be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State by those who are to be adversely affected by the continued pollution of our rivers.
I think it also desirable that some attempt should be made to ensure a general standard of uniformity throughout the whole country. I recognise that some rivers are much more polluted than others and it will take very much longer to purify them, but there may well be cases of rivers running through industrial areas where, because of the pressure brought by local authorities and by industry, consents are given by a water authority for continued pollution of that river which would not bring it up to the standard which I am sure Parliament and the nation hope will take place. I should have thought this was the kind of Amendment to ensure fair and equitable treatment of those who are concerned with purifying the rivers, and I see no reason why there should not be a right of appeal
140
in this case. I hope the Government will consider this matter again before the Report stage. I am not at all convinced that the Bill is not unduly slanted in favour of the polluter, and I think this would be a way by which the Secretary of State could ensure that a satisfactory improvement is made in all rivers throughout the country.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: The noble Lord the Minister, in replying to what I said on this Amendment, accepted that it might be desirable, and that he would look into the question, to insert a provision to say that a water authority should give to the person who has objected notice of the authority's decision in regard to the application or instrument I welcome that so far as it goes, but it does not go very far. That is linked with giving the objector a right, not to a rehearing or anything like that, but a right to appeal to the Secretary of State to consider the matter. It is no more than that. What are the arguments advanced by the Minister against that? He said that it is not appropriate in the context of this part of the Bill. That is a flat statement, but no reasons for it are given.
The Minister then went on to eulogise the water authorities. I feel sure that when river boards were set up the hopes that river boards would prevent pollution were as high as the noble Lords' hopes that water authorities will be effective to do that. But I do not think that hopes, however high, are sufficient justification for removing the safeguards which should exist against things going wrong.
Let me put this sort of case to the noble Lord. Let us suppose that the water authority has an application before it for consent to a discharge of polluting liquid of a serious character, and that is what it has to give consent to. The case for giving that consent may be a strong one, of a new development or a new factory or something like that. Some difficulty has arisen. Indeed, the Bill seems to recognise that, because it provides that where someone does make a discharge without consent and breaks the law in that respect, nevertheless without his applying for consent at all the discharge can be approved of by the water authority.
We are told that the water authority will not be slanted in favour of polluting discharges. Let us suppose that it has

141
such an application for a bad discharge of polluting liquid which people below the point of discharge, rightly or wrongly, think will ruin their fishing, will ruin the river, ruin the flora and fauna and convert the river in the space of a year into nothing less than a sewer. Does the noble Lord say that it really is sufficient merely to say that they should have the right of asking the water authority to consider their objections without any right to ask the Secretary of State to deal with the matter The noble Lord has not justified, or indeed sought to justify, the difference between the rights of an objector after one year's discharge and the rights he has before the discharge takes place. He has objected to the period of 28 days. That is the period provided under Clause 30. I cannot see why it is wrong for one and right for the other. As the noble Lord has given no hope of further consideration of this matter, and it is one to which I attach importance, being one in line with the other proposals in this Bill which take away rights from private individuals without any compensation, I feel disposed to press this Amendment if my noble friends will support me.
LORD ABERDARE: I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not press this particular Amendment until we have debated a number of other Amendments at later stages which are concerned with Clause 30, to which he has already drawn attention, and the new Clause 39 which again allows the water authority to take action to deal with "poisonous, noxious or polluting matter". We have tried very hard in the Bill to make sure that the type of people he has in mind have a proper opportunity to have any of their causes for grievance properly investigated and taken care of. Where I think we differ thoughout our consideration of this Bill at the moment is in the responsibility of the regional water authority. We believe that these will be effective public bodies with the wide duties laid upon them and with their particular membership, and that there are plenty of safeguards for the person who is affected in any way by pollution.
LORD MOLSON: My noble friend refers to their membership. Is it not the case that there will still be a majority of local authority representatives on them?
LORD ABERDARE: A very bare majority. I know it is a majority, but it is a bare one and these are very big authorities. They cover a number of local authorities and they are financed from charges and not from the rates. I see no reason at all to suppose that they are not going to act responsibly and fulfil their statutory obligations. I do not feel that it would be appropriate at the moment to give third parties, whoever they may be—and they may be anybody, however important or however frivolous their objection—an automatic right of appeal to the Secretary of State. They have plenty of other built-in rights under other clauses of the Bill, as the noble Lord knows.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: No, I do not know, I am afraid. I do not accept that. I have looked at the other clauses. I can see the new clause tabled which gives wider powers to the water authority. I have read the rest of the Bill and simply do not accept that. The riparian owners are the ones with whom I am concerned; I am not concerned with the frivolous objector. All you need do with him is to put his application in the wastepaper basket and say that the Secretary of State is not prepared to consider it. The noble Lord must recognise that the Amendment asks only that the Secretary of State should consider the request. It does not mean an appeal in the way of a rehearing, nor does it under Clause 30. It means that they can ask him to look at the matter, and that is all it is. He will not do anything about it if he thinks that is is unwarranted.
The noble Lord asks the Committee to accept that the water authority will always know best, far better than anyone else concerned with the river. When the noble Lord says to me that the subsequent clauses of the Bill provide adequate protection to people who have interests in that river—fishing clubs, riparian owners and so on—I can only say to him that I profoundly disagree with him; and when you read a clause that expressly provides that the right of a private individual to obtain an injunction to prevent a discharge is taken away, I do not see how the noble Lord can say that this Bill contains adequate protection for the private riparian owner. I do not think that this Amendment has been fully considered. I am sorry that the noble Lord cannot give me

143
proper assurances that he will look at this matter very sympathetically. In the absence of those assurances I feel that I must press this Amendment, but I shall not finally decide until I hear what the noble Baroness has to say.
BARONESS WHITE: I would not lot one moment stand between the noble and learned Viscount and a Division, if that is what he wants, but I should be much happier if we were in the position of having studied this important and very long new clause which has been put down extremely late in the day. It has not been possible to study it and to consider its effect on, for example, the Amendment which is now before us.
I so often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that I find it an unhappy state of affairs when on this occasion I cannot agree with him in his criticism of the local authority members. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has pointed out, the situation is entirely different from what it was hitherto, especially on the matter of finance, which is such an important consideration. Therefore, I was not so much convinced as I normally am by what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said. We do not feel able to support the noble and learned Viscount on this Amendment, but of course it is entirely up to him whether he presses it to a Division.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I sympathise with what the noble Baroness said about the new clause, Amendment No. 166F. It is a very long clause, but if she has read it I am sure she has not failed to notice that it does not give a single right to the riparian owner; it merely imposes duties and obligations on a water authority. This new clause cannot be used as a shield in answer to this Amendment, because it does not at all touch the same sphere. What I am concerned to see is that people who have legitimate objections shall have a chance of having them properly considered.
If the Minister thinks that there is anything in Amendment No. 166F which gives increased rights to private individuals—and I am concerned here with the rights of individuals—as distinct from duties and obligations on a water authority, I shall be grateful if he will draw my attention to it. But so far I have not been able to see anything of that sort in
144
that Amendment. Nor have I been able to find the provisions to which he referred, which he said give rights to and protect private individuals. It is because of that absence that I tabled this Amendment. If the noble Lord would like a further opportunity to consider the Amendment I shall not press it on this occasion and will come back to it at Report stage, unless he can satisfy me before then that my fears are unwarranted. Perhaps he can answer that question.
LORD ABERDARE: I hope that as we go through the Bill the noble and learned Viscount will see that we are trying to provide every sort of opportunity for fairness to be shown and to be seen to be shown. However, the position is rather different from what it has been hitherto. What we are arriving at is the nub of the disagreement between us. The noble and learned Viscount is fighting for the legal rights of individuals on which, to a very large extent, we have hitherto had to rely for restricting the pollution of our rivers. What we are trying to do in this Bill, as that system has notably failed, is to produce a new system under which the regional water authorities have very distinct responsiblities laid upon them for the wholesomeness of the rivers. They, in their turn, will lay considerable burdens on other people, such as industry and other dischargers, for publication of the forms of their discharges. There will then be a great deal more publicity, consent has to be given and the terms of the consent have to be published, so the whole concept of the Bill is very different from the present position. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not press this Amendment now, because we will come to many other Amendments of this sort and if he wishes he can return to it at Report stage.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I must express disagreement with the noble Lord when he says that the efforts of the private owner to prevent pollution have notably failed. They have notably succeeded. We start with the Pride of Derby case, and we go on to the Consett iron case and other cases. There is not the smallest doubt that it has been the efforts of the riparian owners and people who have brought similar actions in the courts that have done an enormous amount to clean

145
up our rivers. I cannot let that remark of the noble Lord go unchallenged.
9.46 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: Would the Minister be so good as to refer me to any subsequent Amendment (he referred to subsequent Amendments and I have studied them, I think very carefully) which would answer the point that the noble and learned Viscount was putting to him: that the private individual, the riparian owner, as distinct from the water authority, is to receive any further assurance from those later Amendments that his objection is going to be taken into account and seriously considered—and considered, really, by the Minister if he has not had satisfaction from the water authority? I have searched those further Amendments to try to find some reinforcement of the point of view of the individual. I dare say it is my own fault, but I have not found any. But when the noble and learned Viscount was addressing him the Minister said to us, in effect, "Look at further Amendments. Look at the new Clause 39, and you will find somewhere in them what you are asking for; namely, that the private individual is to have the reassurance that the noble and learned Viscount is seeking for him, that his objection has really been taken into account". I should be most grateful if the Minister would point out any such further Amendment. I have certainly not been able to find one.
LORD ABERDARE: Perhaps I misled the noble Lord, in which case I apologise. What I was trying to say was that there are certain rights left with the individual. In the first place, there is the right under Clause 30(3) if damage has been caused to him after the expiration of one year. We can argue whether one year is correct or not, but there it is; that is one protection for the individual. Then there are the legal rights of the individual if he has suffered damage to go to the court and seek compensation for that damage. There is the further legal right that if a person has discharged illegally or without consent, again an individual can go to the court. There are these rights. Then, when I was referring to a new Amendment I was referring to the new Clause 39. That I admit is not, strictly speaking, a power given to the individual, but it is a duty laid upon the water authority to make
146
sure that no individual suffers from poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, even though there may be a consent for its discharge.
LORD STOW HILL: Perhaps I may just say that the noble and learned Viscount has already answered what the Minister has just said. The new Clause 39, as the Minister concedes, gives no right to the individual. As to the right to come back after a year, that has been in the Bill; that is not an Amendment. The Minister referred to Amendments. With regard to the right to claim damages, what Clause 36 does in its present form is to take away a right which he would normally have to ask for an injunction, which I should have thought was absolutely indispensable for any effective recourse to the courts. I hope that the Minister will now be prepared to say, "When I referred to subsequent Amendments I was speaking under a misapprehension." No further Amendment gives any further help to the private individual. Any help that he gets must be found in the wording of the clauses as they stand now, amended, I would hope, in the way the noble and learned Viscount has asked that this one should be amended.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, and to my noble friends Lord Molson and Lord Bledisloe, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, stressed the duties imposed on water authorities, but that is not the point of this Amendment. I do not object to the duties and the obligations being imposed on water authorities. The noble Lord has been silent about what sanctions there are in the Bill to secure that the water authorities discharge these statutory duties. My memory goes back to the creation of the river boards and I am sure I am right in saying that at that time, high hopes were held that they would stop pollution. The noble Lord says that the existing remedies have broken down, but it was the non-exercise of the powers which the boards had that was the trouble. Had it not been for the rights of private individuals to which my noble friend has referred, a great deal of pollution which has been stopped would now be continuing.

147
I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, quite frankly, that I am not in the least content to be told, "It is all all right. We can leave it to the water authorities". To be told that does not seem to me to be any justification for depriving private individuals of their rights. There is no Amendment which gives them increased rights, and I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was right about that. When you look at the subsequent provisions of this Bill, for reasons which I hope will be explained later, you will see that the Bill deprives them of rights that they now have and which they have had over the centuries; and for no good reason. In the hope that the noble Lord will reconsider this carefully, and bearing in mind that he recognises that I may put down this, or a very similar, Amendment on Report, when we have studied the later provisions in the Bill, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.53 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON moved Amendment No. 150 J:
Page 40, line 18, at end insert ("with the applicant's consent").
The noble Lord said: The clause at present provides that where a consent has been given it will not apply solely to a single individual. It provides that
"a consent for any discharges which is given in pursuance of Section 27 of this Act is net limited to discharges by a particular person and accordingly extends to the discharges in question which are made by any person".
This is really a probing Amendment. I am not clear in what circumstances another person can discharge in pursuance of a consent under Clause 27 of this Bill, but it appears to me that it is only right that the applicant's consent should be obtained.
As I see it, if an applicant has had consent to the discharge of a certain quantity of effluent and somebody else adds to the discharge of that effluent and claims that his discharge is permitted under the consent given, it might well mean that the original applicant for the consent would find (the consent having been limited to a certain amount of polluting matter) that if somebody else without his knowledge or consent added to the discharge of polluting matter at
148
the same place, this might result in a breach of the consent. Therefore it seems to be only right that before anybody else seeks to avail himself of the applicant's right to discharge, he should obtain the consent of that applicant. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: As my noble friend has said, this subsection provides that a consent to a discharge of trade or sewage effluent is not to be limited to a particular person but shall extend to the discharges made by any person. No new principle is involved here: the best view of the existing law is that consent runs with the land. Under existing legislation, consent is required both for bringing into use an outlet and for making a discharge from it. In the Bill, these two separate controls are combined in one and the authority has power to attach conditions. Generally, the discharge will be made through a pipe and nobody unauthorised will be able to get his effluent into the pipe without connivance or neglect by the applicant. But I suppose there may be cases where an applicant is making a discharge in some other way—perhaps through an open channel—to which anyone can gain access, and in that case it is up to him to take proper precautions against this sort of trespass against his right to discharge. I think it would rightly fall on his shoulders to see that is done. Probably the main use of a non-personal consent is that it is available to a successor discharger: for instance, if one person took over from another a going concern, that consent would apply to him. But I do not really think the consent is necessary, though I will certainly have another look at it. Before my noble friend explained his Amendment, I was a little uncertain as to what he had in mind.
LORD MOLSON: In view of my noble friend's explanation and his promise to look at the matter again, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 [Revocation of consents and alteration and imposition of conditions]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendments Nos. 150L and 150M:
Page 40, line 22, after ("and") insert ("subject to the following section").

149
Page 40, line 28, at beginning insert ("Subject to the following section").
The noble Lord said: May I first apologise for the fact that these Amendments were put down only last Friday, which may have led to some inconvenience However, I can assure your Lordships that they are purely drafting Amendments, designed to make clear that the provisions in subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 30, which give power to the water authority to revoke or vary a consent to discharge and to the Secretary of State to direct them to do so, are subject to those in Clause 31. Clause 31 provides that revocation or variation shall not normally take place for a period of not less than two years specified in the consent. If a consent is varied or revoked before this period has expired, compensation is payable in certain circumstances; so the general power to vary or revoke in Clause 30 is subject to these arrangements in Clause 31. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I was going to raise a question with regard to the relationship of these two clauses, but perhaps it would be more convenient to do that when we get to the Motion, That Clause 31 stand part, rather than discuss it on these Amendments. I am a little doubtful as to how the two fit together.
10.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE VISCOUNT DILHORNE moved Amendment. No. 150E:
Page 40, line 40, leave out ("a prescribed") and insert ("any").
The noble and learned Viscount said: Subsection (3) of Clause 30 says:
"If a person having a prescribed right connected with a stream … considers that discharges … have caused damage …"
can take the action so set out. "Prescribed right" means right prescribed by regulations. We have not seen any regulations, and I do not know why it should be limited to a prescribed right. By my Amendments I have sought to make the clause read:
"If a person having a right or interest connected with the water …"
By that one means a legal right or interest. I do not like the idea of prescribed rights, which means some rights which may be less than the legal rights
150
now held. I cannot see the need for any such restriction. I beg to move.
LORD CRAIGTON: I should like to support the noble and learned Viscount. I found great difficulty in understanding who the prescribed person would be in relation to my Amendment which follows. I hope my noble friend will agree to this Amendment.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I should like to support my noble and learned friend. Surely what you have is a person who has a legal right—it may be the riparian owner, or the lessee—but it is that person who has the legal right, not the person who has some unknown prescribed right which we apparently do not yet know about. That must be common sense.
BARONESS WHITE: Could the Minister explain what is meant by "prescribed right"? What has the Minister in mind? What kind of persons who do not have legal rights would have prescribed rights?
LORD ABERDARE: The idea was that the people who had these rights should be prescribed in regulations, as the noble and learned Viscount has already said. The categories of people who have rights connected with streams or stretches of controlled water are somewhat diverse; they include people who own one or more banks of a stream or who, in certain circumstances, lease property or who own fishing rights. We found it difficult to spell out in the Statute exactly who is concerned, and to say anyone with a right connected with water suffers from the disadvantage that people and the water authorities could be in doubt about which categories of persons are involved. The intention of the clause is to enable the Secretary of State to prescribe in regulations what rights connected with water attracted the benefit of the provisions in the subsection. It is not the intention that the regulations should be restrictive but rather descriptive, and to help both the water authorities and the people involved. If noble Lords with their legal knowledge feel it would be better done by sticking to those with legal rights, I do not have a closed mind on the subject and would be delighted to consider it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I personally would prefer it to be legal rights. This

151
wants re-wording. By "right" in my Amendment I mean "legal right". I think that the word "connected" is an unfortunate one. It ought to read:
"… in relation to a stream or controlled waters."
I do not think then you have to make a list in regulations of persons or try to define classes of persons who have legal rights. They will have to establish that they have a legal right to bring themselves within the subsection. That would be a great improvement and would save making regulations which are always tiresome to find. That would meet what the Minister wants. The only criticism about that is it would prevent the various soceties, like the Anglers Co-operative Association, from invoking the provisions of this subsection. I should like to know what the Minister's views are on this matter. As I read the subsection, it was not intended to give bodies of that sort theses kind of rights. In that case it would be better drafting and perfectly effective if the Amendment was changed to read in much the way that I have suggested. The word "connected" is unfortunate, and if the noble Lord will accept the Amendment in spirit and look at it before the next stage, I will ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
LORD ABERDARE: What worries me slightly is the word "interest". I do not know if this is widening it beyond—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I am not wedded to the word "interest". I am merely suggesting that if you have an interest it must mean a legal right or interest. The noble Lord may like to put "legal right or interest" I do not think "interest" makes very much difference, but perhaps it is a more useful expression.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I entirely agree with what my noble and learned friend says. "Legal right or interest" is a very usual expression. You find it in a vast number of Statutes. It is a well understood phrase. I think it would be well to adopt it.
BARONESS WHITE: For those of us who are not legally minded, perhaps the noble Lord could write to me about this before the next stage, because there must
152
have been something further in the minds of those who drafted this Bill when they used the word "prescribe". If existing legal rights were all they meant there is no need to insert "prescribed" at all. I am puzzled about it, and should like to have a letter on it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: "Prescribed" may mean all legal rights and interests, it may mean more than legal rights and interests, it may mean less than legal rights or interests. But we shall no doubt learn in due course. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.9 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 150K:
Page 41, line 1, leave out from ("and") to ("requests") in line 2.
The noble Lord said: I am seeking to delete the words at the top of page 41:
"after the expiration of one year beginning with the day on which the consent was given".
Lord Bledisloe, in speaking on Amendment No. 150D, has really made my speech for me. The point is a short one. If the result of a consent to discharge turns out to be even worse than expected, it seems to me it would be unfair to keep the victim waiting for a year before he can apply for relief. I had in mind a valuable fishery which could be permanently ruined in that time. I wondered whether the owner of the fishery was prescribed, but am happy that that point has been settled. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I have to support this Amendment. It comes back to what we were discussing earlier on an Amendment of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne. Clause 33 presupposes, as I understand it, that there may be a case in which the water authority has given a consent yet the river is damaged. The answer is that the water authority has made a mistake. My noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne was saying that in those circumstances there ought to be a right of appeal to the Minister. But once you assume that the water authority may make a mistake—and they are all human—then surely it is better that that mistake should be rectified by an appeal to the Minister before the damage is done. If you wait

153
a year, as my noble friend said, the fishing may be ruined and it may take a great many years to resuscitate it. If we cannot have Lord Dilhorne's Amendment, I think this matter needs very careful attention.
LORD ABERDARE: This subsection is designed as a special alternative remedy for a particular set of people. The procedure is modelled on that devised to deal with a very similar situation in the Water Resources Act 1963, where someone who considers that his fishing rights have been damaged by the grant of certain licences to abstract water may, after one year, apply for the licences to be revoked. In both cases a period of one year is stipulated before representations can be made because a minimum period is thought to be appropirate before the lasting effect, if any, of the discharge or the abstraction can be assessed.
In some cases discharges settle down after a short while and their long-term effect is much less than to an outside observer seemed likely when they started. Moreover, it can make a difference if the discharge started at a time of abnormal conditions, of droughts or flood. Of course, anyone can ask the water authority at any time to use its power to revoke or vary a consent, and equally, as I have already mentioned, a riparian owner's rights to civil damages are not affected. But it seems reasonable in making this special procedure available, which also has specific provision in this instance for reference to the Secretary of State, to follow the precedent in the Water Resources Act and allow time for a discharge to settle down and for its lasting effect to become apparent before a formal request has to be considered by the water authority. But once again I am quite sure that, if things went badly wrong, a responsible water authority would immediately take action on representations being made to it by a riparian owner or the owner of fishing rights.
LORD MOLSON: I hope the Government will reconsider this whole matter between now and the Report stage. We have had two explanations from my noble friend. So great is the Government's confidence in the foresight and wisdom of the water authorities which are to come into operation, that where some riparian owner has reason to object
154
to a proposed consent for the discharge of pollution into a river the Government think it is unreasonable and unnecessary that that riparian owner should retain the right of appeal to the Secretary of State. They obviously contemplate the possibility that their complete confidence in the wisdom and foresight and strength of purpose of the water authorities may on some occasion prove unjustified. Somebody then suffers serious damage because unwisely this pollution has had consent from the water authority. He then has to wait for a year during which he is being damaged by this undesirable pollution, and after that time has elapsed he then has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
I hope the Government will reconsider the whole of the structure of this Part of the Bill between now and the Report stage. Why should there not be the right of appeal for which the noble and learned Viscount appealed in the original case? Why, after a mistake has been made, should the riparian owner be expected to wait for the period of 12 months? What is the particular sanctity that attaches to 12 months of pollution before the appeal can be heard? I think the arguments of the Government against an appeal in the first instance, and their arguments in favour of an appeal after 12 months in the second case, are not wholly consistent; and I hope that before the Report stage they will make up their mind what they think about it.
LORD CRAIGTON: In view of what my noble friend has said I think probably the Government are now seized of the fact that we are not too happy about the last few Amendments. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 31 [Restriction on variation and revocation of consent and of previous variation]:
10.15 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendments Nos. 150N to 150S:
Page 41, line 25, leave out ("or (2)").
Page41, line 33, leave out ("or (2)").
Page 41, line 35, leave out ("either of those subsections") and insert ("that subsection").
Page41, line 43, leave out ("or (2)").

155
Page 42, line 3, leave out ("in pursuance of the said subsection (2)") and insert ("served by virtue of subsection (2) of that section").
Page 42, line 18, after ("and") insert ("not by virtue of the said subsection (2) and").
The noble Lord said: If I have your Lordships' permission I should like to move Amendments 150N to 150S en bloc. These are all drafting Amendments. Once again, I apologise that they have been put down at very short notice. The reason for them is that notices revoking consents or varying the conditions attached to consents to discharges are always served under Clause 30(1). Even where the Secretary of State, under Clause 30(2), serves the notice himself because the authority has failed to follow his direction to do so, he serves the notice on behalf of the authority and subsection (2) makes clear that in these cases the notices, for the purposes of this Part of the Bill, are to be regarded as having been served by the authority, that is under subsection (1).
It is unnecessary therefore and incorrect, in Clause 31 to refer, as the present draft does in subsections (1), (2) and in the second line of subsection (3), to notices served in pursuance of subsections (1) and (2) of the preceding section. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I am not rising to oppose these Amendments in the least, but I think your Lordships' attention should be drawn to the fact that this is a Government Bill. The Government have tabled over 100 Amendments already and at this late stage we get some more. I really think it is time that the Parliamentary draftsmen learned to do their job.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 152:
Page 42, line 22, leave out ("including") and insert ("which may include").
The noble Lord said: With respect to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe, this is a drafting Amendment. The change in circumstances which would make necessary the revocation or modification of a consent before the period set during which it would not normally be modified may include a change in scientific knowledge, but it does not have to. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 42, line 39, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This subsection was included to deal with a situation where a discharge was to finish before two years had elapsed, and therefore the provisions of subsection (1) requiring consents not normally to be altered for at least two years was inappropriate. On further consideration it has the undesirable effect, as it is drafted, of not allowing any emergency alteration of consents running for less than two years, except by written agreement. As it does not really matter as the undertaking required by subsection (1) is given even in cases where the discharge is expected not to run for two years, it is proposed to dispense with this subsection. The effect of doing this is that discharges expected to run only for a short while will be dealt with in exactly the same way as longer term ones. Consents will not normally be modified within less than two years, but they may be unnecessary with compensation payable in accordance with arrangements made under subsection (4). I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 31, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
10.20 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I must say that I do not think I have appreciated the full effect of the numerous drafting Amendments which have been made to this clause in this very short space of time, but I have not risen to my feet to ask for an explanation of them. This is a very important, and I think a very curious clause, and if the noble Lord will be good enough I should like him to explain in some detail the relationship of this clause to the preceding clause, Clause 30. We have had Amendments made this evening to Clause 30 to say it shall be subject to Clause 31, so Clause 31 takes priority. Am I right in thinking that once the water authority has given consent to a polluting discharge, the effect of Clause 31 is that the polluter who gets the consent to the discharge acquires a right to continue that discharge for a reasonable period of not less than two years, beginning the day on which the consent takes effect? If I am right in that, I am not quite sure how the provisions giving the Secretary of State power under Clause

157
30(2) to cause the water authority to review a consent really will operate.
Under Clause 30(3) one could have a riparian owner objecting at the end of a year. What can the Secretary of State then do? There is a vested right in the polluter who has the consent to discharge for a reasonable period of not less than two years. Has the poor riparian owner to suffer another year before anything effective can be done, or can the Secretary of State override the power? I am inclined to think from reading the clause that the Secretary of State is given power to override the period specified, which is not less than two years, and there is no upper limit. It may be a period sanctioned for, say, ten years. I am inclined to think the Secretary of State has power to override that when he considers it necessary to serve the notice in order to provide proper protection for persons likely to be affected. I do not know what those words mean in the context that the discharge to which consent is given must be a polluting discharge and will affect the rights of persons who are riparian owners and entitled to receive unpolluted waters.
My Lords, may I also ask whether, if this right is exercised, and exists, this clause means that in every case where the consent is terminated in less than a stipulated period, which might be much in excess of two years but at any rate has to be two years, compensation will have to be paid to the polluter unless the case comes within subsection (4)(a) or (b), which are very complicated provisions? Am I right in thinking that as a general proposition, compensation will ordinarily be payable if the consent is terminated in less than the period to which the notice relates? Because if that is so, I can see the considerable reluctance on the part of a water authority, or on the part of a Secretary of State, to terminate a consent which they have granted which, in itself, would indicate a confession that they have made a mistake. It then has to be accompanied by the payment of compensation by them. It may be that I have not understood this complicated clause correctly; it is very complicated. I would ask the noble Lord whether there is any precedent for it. I am not myself aware of one.
LORD ABERDARE: This is indeed a very complicated clause. I am not
158
sure whether I can really satisfy all the questions the noble and learned Viscount has asked, but I will certainly write to him and ensure that I do. For Clause 31 there is a precedent; it follows Section 5 of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1961 and the 1965 Scottish Act, in requiring consents to specify a period of not less than two years within which they may not be varied or revoked except with the agreement of the person holding the consent. But it goes further than that—and this is where it breaks new ground—by permitting an earlier variation or revocation of the consent with payment of compensation unless there has been a change of circumstances which could not have been foreseen when the consent was granted.
Subsection (3) enables a water authority to serve notice of revocation or modification within the specified period if they are satisfied that is necessary to provide proper protection for people likely to be affected by the discharge, or in the case of a consent under Clause 27(3) if they consider it to be appropriate as a result of representations made under Clause 29. Subsection (4) makes the water authority liable to pay compensation when a consent is modified or revoked within the specified period except in the two instances under paragraph (a) and paragraph (b). I hope that goes some way to satisfy the noble and learned Viscount, but I will most certainly make this clear to him in writing.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 [Appeals to Secretary of State]:
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: I think this is consequential on the Amendment we had the other evening on which we had a Division. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 9, after ("unreasonably") insert ("given or")—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
10.28 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 43, line 24, leave out ("or direction").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak on Amendments Nos. 154, 155 and 156.

159
The effect of these Amendments is to establish a right of appeal to the Secretary of State where the Secretary of State, exercising his powers under Clause 30(2), has directed a water authority to revoke or modify a consent to discharge. The provision is necessary because otherwise a discharger could have a consent revoked without having an opportunity to put his case. There is no provision under Clause 30(2) for objections to be heard before the Secretary of State makes his direction, as there is in Clause 28 before the Secretary of State determines an application for consent which he has called in for his decision. Although normally he would no doubt make arrangements for objections to be heard, this would not always be possible because he must be able to direct an authority in an emergency to revoke or vary a consent immediately. We think, therefore, that appeals should be allowed against notices of revocation or modification under Clause 30(1) even if they are served after the direction of the Secretary of State in pursuance of subsection (2) of Clause 30. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 155.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 25, leave out ("or 30(2)").—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ABERDARE: I beg to move Amendment No. 156.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 26, leave out ("or direction").—(Lord Aberdare.)
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 156A:
Page 44, line 9, leave out from ("section") to end of line 14.
The noble Baroness said: The reason for putting down this Amendment is to inquire why consents given in pursuance of regulations made by virtue of Section 23(5) should be treated as unconditional while a reference is pending, whereas other consents are not so treated. We are not at all clear why this favourable treatment
160
should be given to consents made under Clause 23(5), and we should like to have an explanation.
LORD ABERDARE: I think I can explain this to the noble Baroness. Clause 23(5) enables the Secretary of State to designate an area by regulations within which specified activities may not be carried out without the consent of the water authority. This control is somewhat different from other consents under the Bill inasmuch as it bites on activities which might lead to the pollution of water rather than discharges to water. In many instances the prescribed activities affected will already be practised in the area, so that the imposition of new conditions will require them to be stopped or modified. It does not seem reasonable that somebody pursuing activities which have not hitherto led to his prosecution for pollution of water should be stopped from pursuing them even before he has had a chance to challenge on appeal the need for the conditions attached to the consent.
Broadly, the same philosophy has been followed in Clause 33(4) to deal with discharges which are legal without consent until the relevant provision of the Bill is brought into force—until any appeal is determined they are to be allowed to continue in the same form and volume as those being made before the introduction of the Bill. I think this is the distinction: that these are activities already being perfectly legally carried on, and it is only right that they should be allowed to continue until an appeal has been determined, whereas in other cases, where the application is for a new consent, they should not be allowed until the appeal has been determined.
BARONESS WHITE: I am much obliged. It is useful to have that on the Record. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.