Lords Sitting of 1 July 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORE) CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

NATIONAL HEALTH MATERNITY SERVICES
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the growing concern of the Royal College of Midwives that the hitherto efficient service given to mothers and babies is in danger of deterioration.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has received no representations to this effect from the Royal College of Midwives. The reorganisation of the National Health Service should help by bringing together the different elements of the maternity services, hitherto administered by three separate bodies, under a single authority. But if the Royal College will bring to the notice of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, examples of cases in which deterioration is
2
thought likely as a consequence of reorganisation or because resources are said to be lacking, my right honourable friend will be glad to investigate.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her reply, may I ask her whether she is aware that the Royal College of Midwives have throughout adopted a very dignified posture, that they have deliberately refrained from withdrawing labour, as has been suggested in other branches of the profession, but they are concerned about the fact that their members are leaving the profession because of conditions? I feel that events have overtaken us. Perhaps the noble Baroness's right honourable friend is now looking into this matter?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her remarks on this matter. Midwives are included in the Inquiry which the Secretary of State has set up under Lord Halsbury. I am aware that midwives have not taken industrial action, but they are included with the nurses as part of the subject of the independent Inquiry. I do not think there is anything further I can add at this moment, except to say that the number by which they have diminished. which my noble friend referred to, is quite small, and is mainly due to the fact that more and more mothers are having their babies in hospital.
BARONESS MASHAM OF ILTON: My Lords, when the results of the latest dispute die down, may I ask the Minister

3
whether Her Majesty's Government intend to mount an intensified campaign to recruit more midwives and nurses, who are so desperately needed? Does the noble Baroness know that some midwives are doing two jobs, and being paid for only one?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, in reply to the second part of the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, if the noble Baroness has any details of such cases, perhaps she would make sure that I or my noble friend Lord Wells Pestell receives them, and they will be forwarded to the Secretary of State. Turning to the first part of the question, it is part of the objective underlying the restructuring of the Health Service to try to recruit more nurses; and in using the word "nurses" in the wider sense I am including midwives. However, I must also point out that one reason why we are in the present situation is due to the cuts in public expenditure introduced at the end of last year by the previous Government.

CONCORDE: INTERNATIONAL SERVICE
2.37 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: 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 serious consideration is being given to the concept of setting up an international Concorde service.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESW1CK): My Lords, up to the present time orders for Concorde have been placed by British Airways and Air France. Their intention is to bring a Concorde service into operation at the earliest possible date. No other airline has yet placed orders for Concorde, but obviously we welcome any interest shown by foreign airlines in acquiring Concorde and would consider carefully any proposals whereby they might be associated in some way with Concorde operations.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord,
4
Lord Beswick, for that reply, may I ask whether he can say what stage Concorde has reached now in type certification? Can he further say how soon the Government expect Concorde to come into service?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the anticipated date was April, 1976, but it is just possible that that date may be brought forward. With regard to type certification, the tests seem to be going very well. It is of some interest that the Civil Aviation Authority, who are responsible for the type certification, have said that as a result of their tests,
"Concorde is unequivocally the nicest flying aeroplane that we have ever seen in normal operation",
which seems to be quite a considerable tribute.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that since he referred to this matter last week, a Concorde flown by a French crew, starting in Paris, has flown the Shah of Iran back to Teheran? When are the British Government to get involved in this major and important contract? Week after week goes by and we seem to be losing out on it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has made this point before. Surely, it is most natural that, if the Shah of Iran visits Paris and flies back from Paris, the crew should be French. That seems to be quite reasonable. As a matter of fact, the operation to Boston and back the other day was undertaken by a British crew. An order by Iran for Concorde, when signed, will be a British operation.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, in view of the number of statements that have been made with regard to Concorde, it will probably be obsolete so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned? His reply seems to indicate to the House that such is not correct, and that the attitude of Her Majesty' Government is to proceed, alongside our French counterparts, with this major project. Is that correct?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, everyone makes their own estimate or guess. I am only dealing with facts.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, can the noble Lord advise the House on the timing of our discussions with our French partners?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, no date has yet been fixed. I should think that it will be in a matter of the next two or three weeks, possibly the middle of July.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister say for how long the negotiations with Iran are likely to go on?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, they have been going on for a long time now, and, of course, there are many details to be settled. It is just possible that there may be some conclusion by the autumn.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, without asking the Minister anything which would be difficult for him to answer, or getting into the controversy about whether the French or the British are doing this or that, may I ask him whether he would agree that if we can go ahead soon this will be a most welcome confirmation of longer-term Anglo-French co-operation in industrial matters, which was so difficult to arrange in de Gaulle's time?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Lord that it would be an absolutely wonderful example of constructive co-operation between two allies.

E.C.G.D. OPERATIONS
2.42 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: 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 to what extent there has been a departure from the convention and practice in accordance with which Ministers do not intervene in the exercise by the Export Credits Guarantee Corporation (in consultation with the Advisory Council and subject to Treasury consent) of their commercial judgment in giving guarantees; and whether they will state the countries and classes of goods and services affected by such intervention.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there has been no change either in convention or practice regarding the availability of facilities from the Export Credits Guarantee Department since the present Administration took office. Any uncertainty arose from unfounded Press reports.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, while very much welcoming that Answer, may I ask the noble Lord whether there has been any cancellation of exports, or would-be exports, to any country as a result of the refusal of a guarantee from the Export Credits Guarantee Department which was induced by the Government?
LORD BESWICK: Not to my knowledge, my Lords. But I hesitate to give an absolutely categorical assurance, because I am not certain what question the noble Lord has asked. There may have been some cancellation, but not because there has been any change so far as the relationship between the Government and the E.C.G.D. is concerned.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may put the question a little more bluntly, have the Government brought pressure to bear at any time on the Export Credits Guarantee Department not to give guarantees in respect of certain classes of goods or to certain countries?
LORD BESWICK: The answer to that is, "No" my Lords.

LONDON WEIGHTING: PAY BOARD REPORT
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Beswick will be making a Statement on the Report of the Pay Board on London Weighting.
EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
2.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I understand that no Amendment has been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord wishes to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak to a clause or Schedule. I therefore beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged. At this point I should inform your Lordships that this is purely a Consolidation Bill. The Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills are of the opinion that the Bill, as amended, represents the existing law and there is no point to which the attention of Parliament should be drawn. I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PRICES BILL
2.49 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH):My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Food subsidies]:
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("sale") to ("and") in line 12.
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be relieved to know that I have no intention of pressing this Amendment. It is purely an exploratory Amendment concerned with the scheme for subsidising household flour. The schemes for subsidising the other foods—milk, butter, cheese and bread—have already been announced; we know how they will work and what
8
they will cost. But if the noble Lord is in a position to give us further information about the scheme for flour we should be most grateful. I beg to move.
2.50 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: I think I should explain why the Government have felt it necessary to subsidise household flour, before coming to the specific points about which the noble Lord asked. When the Bill was first published, Clause 1(2) referred only to subsidies on milk, butter and flour for the production of bread, but as the subsidy programme was developed it was decided to add cheese and, more recently, household flour. The Government's objective has been to select basic foodstuffs that feature regularly in the shopping of most households, and, in particular, to take action where prices have been subject to sharp increases. Household flour meets these criteria. Although it obviously does not account for such a large proportion of consumer expenditure as milk or bread, it is none the less an important item for the average housewife. Total household consumption has been estimated at about 400,000 tons a year, with a value at the retail level of around £40 million.
Against this background the Government were particularly concerned about the rising price of household flour. All cereals-based products have been subject to large price increases, and flour is no exception to this. Between December last year and May, the index of the Department of Employment showed that the average price of a 3 lb. packet of self-raising flour rose from 14·9p to 20·2p. This is an increase of over 5p, or about 35 per cent., in only five months. Because of this serious situation the Government are anxious to act as quickly as possible. Indeed, this is the basic reason why powers have been taken in the Bill, so that action can be taken without going through the formality of an order under Clause 1(2)(b) of the Bill.
I know that this problem has been causing concern to a number of people outside this House, as well as inside it. There are a number of important details to be worked out in consultation with the trade. Perhaps even more important, it is still uncertain whether there will be further price increases in the near future. It is true that cereals prices have fallen back from the exceptionally high levels

9
obtaining at the beginning of this year, but prices are still considerably higher than normal. To ensure continuity of supply, it is the normal practice for the trade to contract for supplies some way ahead. It will therefore take some time before deductions in world market prices work their way through to the consumer. At the same time, other overheads and basic costs—for example, labour, fuel, and packaging—are rising and will tend to offset the present scale of reduction in world prices.
It will take a little more time, I fear, to clarify these problems, but as soon as they are clarified we will announce the full details of the scheme, including its coverage and indeed the rate of subsidy. I recognise that it would have helped your Lordships in the consideration of this aspect of the Bill if the details of the scheme could have been made available to-day, but unhappily, for the reasons that I have mentioned, I am afraid that this is not possible. I can give some figures for the purpose of illustration, and I think that these will meet the specific point that the noble Lord raised. A subsidy of 3p on the usual 3 lb. packet would involve annual expenditure of the order of £10 million. There would be some marginal additional administrative costs, but I do not think that they would be unduly large.
There is one other point to which I might refer in support of the general subsidy on household flour; that is, the very large number of representations that the Government have received asking for just such a subsidy. There are the housewives who prefer to make their own bread, and who were thus unable to obtain the benefit of a general bread subsidy. The Government will seek to meet the wishes of these consumers by including in the subsidy scheme all the main types of flour used for home baking, including whole-meal flour which has been specifically mentioned in quite a substantial number of the letters received.
I was reassured to hear what the noble Lord said about not pushing this Amendment to a Division, because it is now unnecessary for me to quote the gracious words of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when my noble friend Lord Jacques made a Statement on the bread subsidy, on May 9 at column 651 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. However, if I may
10
quote the words of the noble Baroness, speaking from the Front Bench opposite, she said:
"Finally, if the bread subsidy is to continue, will the noble Lord consider subsidising flour directly so that it might be of benefit to those provident housewives who bake their own bread?"
I am glad to reassure both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the Government have met this point totally within the provisions of the Bill. In view of the various factors that I have mentioned this afternoon, I would commend this proposition to the Committee.
2.56 p.m.
LORD HALE: May I intervene to make two brief observations about this matter expressing something near to a minor dissent? Flour is not a working-class commodity. The old-age pensioners of Oldham do not use flour because they have not got the cooking facilities to use it; indeed, cooking is exceedingly expensive. Flour is a middle-class commodity. But I think that the middle-class have probably been hit harder, relatively speaking, these days than any other class, and I am perfectly prepared to let them have this modest subsidy without objection.
I hope that the noble Lord will go on to say that the Government are going to reverse the practice of the last Government in relation to international wheat dealings and commodity markets. This matter will be considered by the United Nations at two separate conferences being held this year. The British Government voted against any organisation through the United Nations to try to keep a tab on gambling in raw materials and commodities, and everybody now knows—indeed we are indebted to, I think, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for opening the debate which developed the point—that the reason why flour is more costly in England depends a very great deal on the fact that the Russians managed to buy from the Americans more wheat than the Americans had got at a low price, which greatly added to the prices of American food generally.
I am quite sure that this is out of order, and would have been ruled out of order in another place; but, in a rare example, I am trespassing on the courtesies of the House to mention this matter

11
and to express the hope that the Government are dealing with the question very seriously, because it is important.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: I shall be glad to take note of the point that my noble friend has raised.
LORD ABERDARE: I am grateful for the information that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has given to the Committee. I do not think that it is really very satisfactory that we should have in the Bill a provision for the subsidy of an item without knowing the details of the scheme that is concerned. As I said, on the other items we know what is involved, and if it is desired to add a further item then that has to be done, as I understand it, by an Order which is subject to the affirmative approval of both Houses. Therefore, to that extent the provisions for flour fall into a sort of intermediate case where they are in the Bill, but we do not know any details about them.
I appreciate the difficulty of the noble Lord. I would only ask that if the details of the scheme become known during the course of this Bill going through this House that he would be kind enough to let us know. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD BARNBY: We are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his explanation. I should like to support a portion of the remarks just made by the noble Lord, Lord Hale. It seems that this is an instance where support is being given to families that are outside the less affluent sections of the community, because of the fact that a very small proportion of the less affluent households have the facilities for using the flour. Therefore, it would seem that in this instance the majority of the support under this category will go to families that are least in need of that subsidy.
Perhaps the noble Lord, in replying to my noble friend Lord Aberdare, would give some indication as to how this is to be administered. Is there any way in which the discrimination which should be in the Bill to give the least support to the most affluent people can be carried out? Again, is there to be any differentiation in regard to the proportion of support which will be given under this Part of the Bill, about which the noble Lord,
12
Lord Harris of Greenwich, replied to my noble friend Lord Aberdare? Then, has there been any thought as to differentiating the support which is to be given to different classes of flour? Without going into technical terminology, it is generally understood that certain classes of flour are less deleterious to the consumer than others. It would seem that there is an admirable opportunity here, not only to save money, but to contribute something to the educational requirements of guiding people as to how nutrition should best be given.
LORD LEATHERLAND: I do not intend to let my noble friend Lord Hale and the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, get away with this myth that flour is not used in working-class households but is the prerogative of the middle classes. Have they never heard of Yorkshire pudding with the Sunday joint? My noble friend Lord Hale probably has not; he sat for a Lancashire constituency for many years. But the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, is a Yorkshireman, I believe, and he should be fully conversant with this great delicacy, which is the apple of the eye of working-class families on Sundays.
Working-class families, too, like steak and kidney pie, which also calls for flour; they like jam tarts, too. The rolling pin is one of the essential domestic items in the ordinary working-class household. I have never heard so much rot in all my life. I am glad that my noble friend is subsidising flour. It is one of the most sensible subsidies to have been put into operation under this Bill.
LORD HALE: May I thank my noble friend for his courteous reference to my observations, which is not untypical of some of the observations he has been making recently in relation to other of my honourable friends. But the plain answer is that I referred to the old-age pensioners of Oldham. I do not think I said anything about working classes: if I did, I apologise. It is a phrase I do not like to use. It is an objectionable form of terminology and classification from any point of view. Indeed, I call myself "lower middle-class" and I do not think that gives any distinction. In the old days, when they did serve Yorkshire pudding over the Yorkshire Border, they made them mainly with

13
eggs. In those days people in full employment were able to buy an occasional egg, but not many. On the other hand, as I have made a comprehensive study into the feeding habits of old-age pensioners and their feeding potentiality, I can say that if anyone tries to work it out on the many figures available they will find that the largest single item involved is potatoes.
In towns like Oldham—about which I do know because I have been there thirty years and visited every house in the town—for many years 80 per cent. of the houses scheduled for destruction did not contain a modern gas or electric cooking stove. With the price of electricity and gas to-day, I should be most happy if the noble Lord would contribute to the old-age pensioners' monthly journal a little advice on how to cook, and at what expense, in allocating at least half their income to the desperate expense these days of trying to keep a roof over their heads. Therefore, I have nothing to withdraw or apologise for in the observations that I made, which were based on a long and extensive experience of the living of the less well-off classes of the community in over-populated urban areas.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My noble friend has invited me to teach people how to cook. Fortunately, that is one of the things I can do. Long ago when I was in the Army I was sent away on a cooking course because it was felt that a company quarter-master sergeant, as I then was, should know how to make the best use of the rations. I can tell my noble friend how to cook a Yorkshire pudding, and he does not need a gas or electric stove to do it. I have seen them cooked in ordinary coal ovens in many humble cottages.
LORD BARNBY: Being a Yorkshire-man I cannot let pass the opportunity of commenting on the noble Lord's remarks. Certainly a Yorkshire pudding is something which we all enjoy and are proud of. But again it is contestable as to what proportion of households in the different affluent categories of the community would have Yorkshire pudding. In any case it is a small proportion that would have the proper kind of Yorkshire pudding. But the noble Lord did not make any comment in which I would
14
have been interested on the relative merit of a subvention on flour as against bread. It would seem that there is a differentiation and a justification for it, and that the proportion of bread consumed in relation to flour consumed in the different categories of the community varies a good deal.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I remark with what great pleasure I hear two male Members of the House argue the merits of how to cook a Yorkshire pudding?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: I think the safest thing to do in this rather perilous controversy between my noble friends Lord Hale and Lord Leatherland is to steer a discreet path between them. I can confirm that so far as I am aware the Government have not a clearly defined policy on Yorkshire pudding, except to confirm, I think, that the flour element of it will receive a subsidy once the Bill goes on to the Statute Book. On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, and as his noble friend Lady Young indicated earlier, in this question which I quoted it is only fair to subsidise flour so that those people who do bake bread themselves, quite apart from the other people who will gain some degree of advantage from the provision, should have a subsidy for household flour. That is why the Government have made this proposal.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power of Secretary of State to regulate price of food and certain other goods]:
3.9 p.m.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 32, at end insert
("(d) an order under paragraph (a) of that subsection shall not have the effect of requiring persons to sell at a loss.").
The noble Lord said: This is a straightforward and simple Amendment, but it seems to me that it is not so regarded on the other side of the Committee, and that noble Lords opposite need to be reassurred that my sleeves are empty of cards on this occasion. The aim of the Amendment is perfectly straightforward.

15
The proposition that the Minister might, as a matter of course, require retailers to retail goods for less than they had been forced to pay for them for any length of time is an unlikely one. I shall refer later to the dangers of that proposition when we discuss the condition of the small shopkeeper, which is very parlous indeed at the moment. No concern, however large, profitable and well-run could be expected voluntarily to sell goods at a loss, and if they were so required the line of goods in question would very soon cease to be stocked. As the goods to which this Bill applies are those which the Minister regards as either the staple diet or the basic household necessities of the people of this country, one cannot expect her to pursue a course of action which would result in driving the commodities in question off the shelves of the shops, of whatever sort they may be.
It occurred to me, while searching for the grounds upon which Her Majesty's Government might resist this Amendment—and I must say that from their reaction it seems to me that they may have been more thorough in their research than I have—that they might be finding it difficult to define the term "at a loss". This is something which I shall be happy to help them with at a later stage if they feel it necessary, and I hope that we shall be able to arrive at a definition which will be satisfactory on both sides of the counter, as well as on both sides of your Lordships' Committee. But, in the meantime, I will rest simply upon saying that an insistence upon retaining powers which will enable her to make it impossible for the less well-off to buy a loaf of bread makes the Minister look more like Marie Antoinette than the benefactor of the people that she and all of us wish her to be. I shall therefore be interested to hear what it is that Her Majesty's Government are about to say on this question. I beg to move.
LORD JACQUES: At an earlier stage of this Bill, the noble Lord's colleagues in another place indicated their concern that an order put forward by the Secretary of State should not require anyone to sell their goods at a loss. I can assure the noble Lord that the Government have the fullest sympathy with the objectives of the Amendment. We fully accept the principle that the price-regulation powers
16
under this clause must be exercised with discretion and must avoid an unjustifiable impact on profits. It is certainly not the intention to use the power to drive firms into loss-making situations, or to create bankruptcies, or to erode profits unduly. I would particularly direct the attention of the Committee to subsection (5), which puts a time limit on the order-making powers. As the Bill stands at the moment, orders made under this clause cease to have effect on March 31, 1975. That is only nine months from now. It can be extended for a further twelve months to March 31, 1976, but that is the absolute limit. So we are talking about something which can have a duration of only one year and nine months.
Those dates have been selected deliberately, because they are the dates used by the past Administration in connection with the Counter-Inflation Act and the Price Code. They have been chosen deliberately so that the trader will have all the protections under the Price Code while the orders under this clause apply; that is to say, protections not only against losses but also against low profits. Of course, the Price Code operates case by case in relation to the circumstances of each individual firm. Since price-regulation orders will necessarily operate across the board, it would not be practicable to reproduce the Code's safeguards in equivalent form in the orders. It is necessary to set about it in a rather different way, by applying the same general principles to the content of the particular order.
As my colleagues in another place have already made clear, the Government propose to set prices which are reasonable for the generality of the trade affected. We shall fix prices in the light of the best possible information about the general circumstances of particular sections of the trade. The clause ensures that consultation with interested parties must take place before any order is made. Moreover, it gives sufficient flexibility to allow orders to take account of the different circumstances of shops of different size and different types. But the Government have gone further than this. In response to the representations which the noble Lord's colleagues made in another place, we introduced a new subsection, which is now subsection (7). This specifically requires the Secretary of State to look at

17
the circumstances of the trade in the goods concerned, and at the effect of any order on the profitability of those trades before it is made.
This will ensure that in making orders under this clause the Secretary of State will consider whether regulation of a price would give rise to a general risk of loss-making, or of unacceptably low profits. We have also had the voluntary agreement, and the Secretary of State has given an undertaking that so long as the agreement is working satisfactorily she will not use any powers under this clause except in the case of subsidised foods. I hope the noble Lord will accept that, for the reasons which I have explained, the additional provision in subsection (7) goes as far as we believe can reasonably be gone to meet the points he has made. In the light of the explanations I have given, I trust he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD ELTON: If I may recapitulate, orders of this sort will be laid regarding subsidised foods only after lengthy consultation with interested parties, during which profitability will be considered as a respectable ingredient of trading, and a reasonable amount of profitability will be allowed to the traders. The noble Lord went further and said that different sorts of traders might be treated in different ways, which gives me grounds to hope that the small trader, whose position is very shaky at the moment, will be carefully considered on his own. If the noble Lord would confirm this and would allow me time to consider in greater detail what he has said, for which I am grateful, I should be able to withdraw this Amendment. But perhaps he would tell me whether I have understood correctly.
LORD JACQUES: We are fully aware that in the food trades there is, at one end, the small convenient shop—the shop where the customer can usually go to replenish supplies without any inconvenience of travelling—and, at the other end, the large supermarket which depends upon scale in order to reduce prices and attract trade. The supermarket needs a large catchment area, so that most of its customers have to travel; they travel to get low prices. We have that very much in mind, and consequently we have
18
Clause 5, which provides for a range of prices.
LORD ELTON: In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ABERDARE: May I make one point on Clause 2? I regret that I have not been able to give notice of it to the noble Lord because it has been drawn to my attention only very recently, but if he would be kind enough to consider it and perhaps let me know in due course, I would be very grateful. It arises under subsection (4)(a), which says:
"an order under paragraph (a) of that subsection may make provision whereby the price to be charged by a person is not to exceed his buying price as determined in accordance with the order by more than a margin so determined".
I am told that this could give rise to difficulty for the vertically integrated wholesaler/retailer, either a company which is both wholesaler and retailer or an individual. In that case, they are buying as wholesalers and selling as retailers, but there is no intermediate sale within the one company when it is transferring the goods from the wholesale part of its business to the retail part, as there would be in the case of separate companies or separate individuals. If one were to regulate their margin under this subsection by reference to the price at which they buy as wholesalers, then clearly that would be most unfair on them.
A similar difficulty would arise in the case of separate wholesale and retail companies within a single group but under one single management. I want only to ensure that this situation will be taken into account when an order is made under this subsection, so that it will not be unfair on those who are both wholesalers and retailers. If the noble Lord cannot give me that assurance now, perhaps he would write to me in due course and give it to me.
LORD JACQUES: The point as I understand it, is that some retailers are retailers only and buy in relatively small quantities from wholesalers. But other

19
retailers are their own wholesalers. They buy in bulk and from their warehouse they supply several of their branches. They are able, because they are buying in bulk, to buy at lower prices. But they also have higher expenses because, having received the goods in bulk, they have to break down the bulk and distribute the goods to their branches. That I understand to be the position. It is an excellent point and I undertake unreservedly to draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
LORD ROYLE: I wonder whether my noble friend can help me as regards the new form of trading—"cash and carry"—which has arisen during recent years. Are such traders wholesalers, are they retailers, are they both, or are they neither? How are they affected by this subsection?
LORD JACQUES: From my observations, I would say that they are both. I have observed that they have in the store or warehouse—sometimes it is a warehouse rather than a store—at the same time, both the retail customer and the shopkeeper, so they are doing both retail and wholesale trade. How are they affected by this subsection? I should have thought that in selling at their prices for large quantities of "cash and carry" they are unlikely to be seriously affected.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very grateful for the assurance which the noble Lord has given me.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Additional powers of Price Commission to prevent or restrict price increases]:
3.22 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 6 line 4 after ("implemented") insert ("so long as such implementation had not occurred earlier than three months prior to the Secretary of State's direction.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 3 gives power to the Price Commission in certain wholly exceptional circumstances to prevent or restrict a price rise even though that rise is consistent with the general rules of the Price Code. At Second Reading, if I recollect correctly—because there is no Hansard available—the Government
20
said that just as the Minister may after consultation with the Commission allow a price rise in exceptional circumstances, even though it is inconsistent with the Price Code, so equally there should be a provision for disallowing a price rise in exceptional circumstances. I can see that there is some logic in that proposition. But what alarms me is the element, if not of retrospection then at least of retroaction in subsection (4) of this clause. It is perfectly satisfactory to start with when it says:
"This section does not apply to any increase implemented before the passing of this Act";
but it goes on to say:
"but, subject to that, applies both to a proposed increase and to an increase that has already been implemented;"
So far as I am concerned, that is where the worry comes in. There is there no limit of time. The direction can be backdated to any time after the passing of the Act.
What the Amendment seeks to do is to limit the time of backdating to three months. It would limit the power of the Secretary of State to give a direction under this clause to price increases that had been implemented not more than three months before. Certainly that would seem to me to be a perfectly reasonable proposition. The procedures that have to be gone through under the section should certainly, I should have thought, be capable of completion well within three months. The Price Commission first has to satisfy the Secretary of State that there are exceptional circumstances justifying intervention and then, if the Secretary of State agrees, she has to consult with the firm concerned and perhaps with other interested persons, and then she may give a direction by Statutory Instrument. It would seem to me that three months is ample time after a price rise for the Price Commission to satisfy the Secretary of State and for the Secretary of State to complete her consultations. We all dislike anything to do with retrospection or retroaction. I know it is necessary here, but all I would suggest is that it would be reasonable at least to put a time limit on it, and in this Amendment I suggest three months. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I should like warmly to support what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said in proposing this

21
Amendment. This matter was referred to several times while the Bill was going through another place and it was referred to also on Second Reading here. It seems to me, as it does to the noble Lord, that three months is a reasonable time within which action could be taken if there are exceptional circumstances that require it to be taken, but that it is quite unfair for there to be a possibility, as there is under the Bill as at present drafted, for an almost indefinite time to pass and then for action to be taken requiring, as I understand it, a "pay back" of prices charged a long time ago.
BARONESS BIRK: This Amendment raises a point which was very thoroughly debated in another place, where the Government made it absolutely clear that firms need not expect to find themselves vulnerable to the new procedure for an indefinite period after every price increase. But here we are concerned with a procedure which can be initiated by the Price Commission bringing a particular case to the attention of the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State is satisfied by the Price Commission that there are exceptional circumstances justifying intervention, then after consultation the Secretary of State is empowered to give a direction.
I am giving this background, although as I understand it the principle was accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, because it is very pertinent to the whole question of the three months which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and also by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. If the Price Commission think it necessary to intervene in relation to a particular proposal they will do so as promptly as possible, and the considerations will be the same whether the Commission take the view that the increase is inconsistent with the Code and hence that the Commission's powers operate, or that while the increase is consistent with the Code there are such exceptional circumstances justifying intervention that the case should be brought to the attention of the Secretary of State under the new procedure in this clause.
The previous Administration evidently considered that it was unnecessary to specify a time limit within which the Commission must act to restrict a price increase under Section 6 of the Counter-Inflation
22
Act. Theoretically these powers are available indefinitely. In practice, of course, the Commission can normally be expected to reach a view on a proposal during the period in which it is before them under the pre-notification rules or as shortly afterwards as possible. Nobody has seriously suggested—and I am certainly not going to do so to-day—that the Price Commission will suddenly and for the first time direct their attention to a price increase effected without comments many months previously. They have certainly enough to do to keep pace with all the current proposals. Precisely the same considerations will apply in the future when the Commission will also be free to consider the applicability of this new provision.
The detailed proposal in this Amendment, which is the core of the Amendment, would provide that any direction relating to a completed price increase must be given within three months of the price going up. From what I have already said, I hope it is clear that the procedure will be invoked very rarely (which is why it is spelt out in exceptional cases), that it will be initiated and completed as quickly as possible and that it is unlikely that directions will have to be given in relation to completed price increases, and still less likely that they will relate to an increase completed many months previously.
Nevertheless, I must advise your Lordships against amending the Bill in the manner proposed for the following reasons: first, the Amendment could—and in certain circumstances undoubtedly would—put a premium on delay, for it could operate as an incentive to a firm to put up its prices as soon as the Price Commission initiated the procedure. The Secretary of State is quite properly required by subsection (2) to engage in extensive consultation before giving a direction. If Parliament sets a statutory time limit to the Secretary of State's action, the firm will have every incentive to raise its prices and drag out the consultative process, so that any direction would be out of time. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is in the interests of all concerned that the firm should defer implementing the price increase until the procedures have been completed. Secondly, there is some general difficulty about statutory time

23
limits of this nature, and we have seen this operating in quite different matters which have no connection at all with prices. Such limits tend to become regarded as the norm. Three months may be ample for the majority of cases, but, if that period is written into the Statute, it may be restrictive in a complex case and may tend to prolong the procedure in the simpler case.
It was no doubt with such considerations in mind that the previous Administration refrained from imposing any general time limit on the exercise of the Price Commission's powers under Section 6 of the Counter-Inflation Act in relation to a price increase which had already been implemented. Clause 3 of the Bill deals only with a special instance of that general case and, in the light of the explanation that I have given, I hope that the noble Lords opposite will not wish to press their Amendment.
In answer to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that it is quite unfair for an almost indefinite time to be allowed, I hope that he will take the point that in some circumstances it could work either way: it could be unfair to restrict this time, and people could take advantage if this were done; on the other hand, it could mean that the Secretary of State would not have sufficient time for consultation. I think that one point upon which we all agree is that, if something of this nature is to operate, it is essential that the Secretary of State should have the opportunity to consult with everybody concerned.
LORD ABERDARE: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for having given me such a full answer on my Amendment and I must say that I found it convincing in places. I especially understand the point that it might put a premium on delay and that this would not be desirable. Like her, I hope and think that the possibility of this procedure being used is extremely remote. In view of what the noble Baroness has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
LORD JACQUES: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

LONDON WEIGHTING: PAY BOARD REPORT
3.37 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, with permission, I will repeat the Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have today laid before the House and published the Report of the Pay Board on London Weighting.
"The Report was commissioned by the previous Administration as an independent examination to advise what changes are required in the basis and operation of the London Weighting formula, which was generally adopted on the recommendation of the National Board for Prices and Incomes in 1967. On taking office, the Government decided that it was desirable for this review to be completed and have urged all those concerned to await its outcome.
"The Pay Board have taken evidence from many groups and have undertaken detailed surveys. They have concluded—as did the N.B.P.I.—that the proper purpose of London Weighting is to take account of the different costs of working in London from elsewhere in the country, and that it is applicable only to those in London who have national rates of pay and not to those who adjust their rates of pay to the London labour market. London Weighting is therefore a solution for a largely public sector problem and should not be paid to those in the private sector who are not in exactly the same position.
"With this in mind the Board recommend that London Weighting should be made as comprehensive as possible to deal with the measurable differences in the costs of working as between London and the rest of the country. It should take account of housing, travel

25
to work and certain other quantifiable costs, for all of which the Board suggest what they regard as valid measures. They also set a value on certain intangibles, such as relative standards of housing. On this basis they suggest that the level of weighting should be raised to £400 for Inner London and to £200 for Outer London.
"By 'Inner London' the Board mean an area within four miles of Charing Cross and for the limit of 'Outer London' they take the G.L.C. boundary. It would, however, be left to negotiations to decide whether or not to alter these boundaries to suit their circumstances. If they do so, the Board envisage that they would distribute the same total sum of money which the Pay Board's boundaries would have produced for the employees concerned.
"The levels of weighting suggested by the Board are based on information relating to last April and the Board make no recommendation on the question of retrospection. Looking forward, the Board suggest that there should be a simple annual up-dating operative from July 1 each year and relating to costs in the preceding April as published by my Department. There would be a major review of the whole operation of the scheme after three or five years.
"The Board say that London Weighting cannot be designed to help the first-time house purchaser. They see this as a major but separate problem with which each employer must deal in whatever way the situation merits. Assistance for first-time house purchasers would raise issues for the public sector which the Government will have to consider in the light of the Report. There is little doubt, however, that housing is at least as important as pay in many of the labour supply problems of London.
"The Government appreciate the clarity and thoroughness of the Report's analysis. The Board's examination was set in train when statutory pay controls were in full operation, but the recommendations are entirely applicable to a voluntary situation. These recommendations provide a common set of principles by which substantial improvements can be negotiated
26
in the existing rates of London Weighting and by which negotiators can arrange for their objective adjustment in the future. The Government regard the Report as a most useful contribution to the resolution of this particular problem and believe that the principles proposed should be applied in negotiations on London Weighting both in the public sector and by private sector negotiators who are in the same position.
"As I have earlier made clear, it is the Government's intention that employers and unions should be free to negotiate on this matter; and the Government are glad to endorse the Report as affording guidance by which negotiations on London Weighting can now sensibly proceed. If these negotiations lead to settlements before the statutory pay controls are ended, the Government consider that the Report provides the exceptional circumstances to enable me to enter into consultation with the Pay Board with a view to using my consent powers to enable implementation.
"Although action on London Weighting should help to ease labour shortages in the services affected as between London and the rest of the country, I recognise that it is not a complete answer to the special problem of London Transport, on which a strong case was put to me some time ago jointly by the employer and unions. Action on that special situation will need to be taken in the light of the outcome of the current arbitration on London Transport pay."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.40 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating that interesting Statement, and to welcome this Report on London Weighting which, as he said quite rightly, was commissioned by us when we were in Government. I am very glad that the present Government have welcomed it and I should like to join with the noble Lord in paying tribute to the Pay Board for having produced it. But it seems to me to be extraordinarily paradoxical that here the Government are coming forward with a Report from the Pay Board, which

27
they thoroughly commend, on the very day when we are discussing the Prices Bill, which under Clause 6 contains powers to abolish the Pay Board. I should have thought that this Report was further evidence of the usefulness of the Pay Board in its approach to these problems, and in making sure that we deal with them in a fair way and in a way that all can see is fair.
I would ask the noble Lord only one question, which is stimulated by his repeating the phrase, "entirely applicable to a voluntary situation". As I read it, when statutory controls are ended unions will then be free to negotiate whatever London Weighting they wish, regardless of the guide lines in this Report. I wonder what is the intention with regard to an annual review every July 1, if there is no statutory policy and if the findings of that review have no weight and are simply open for negotiation between unions and management.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, may we also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place? May I ask him whether, in view of the fact that the Government have repeatedly urged those concerned to await the outcome of the Board's deliberations, they feel that there is a strong case for retrospection, at least to April 1, especially since the cost of living has continued to increase since then? Presumably, if this amount was paid, it would compensate workers only for the differential in the cost of living in London up to April 1, and not for the increased differences between the costs of living in London and elsewhere in the country which have occurred since April 1.
Bearing in mind the consideration of transport costs in these findings, does the noble Lord consider that there is a case for the Government's making a contribution towards the cost of subsidising fares on London Transport—a policy which has been followed by the Greater London Council? Also, can he say anything further on the assistance which might be offered by the Government to first-time house purchasers? Does he realise that this is a practice which is fairly widespread in private industry? I believe that banks, insurance companies and building societies all give assistance to some extent. This might be an additional means of
28
ensuring that workers in essential occupations are available in Greater London.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I should like to thank both noble Lords for the welcome which they have given to this Statement. I understand the difficulty mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in accepting this Report within the context of a voluntary wage negotiation system. There is clearly a most important factor here and the noble Lord should try to understand what we are trying to do. We do not want the over-rigid compulsory system, but we do want certain guide lines to be accepted. The Trades Union Congress lays down certain guide lines. There is a guide line laid down here in respect of London Weighting, and we hope very much that that guide line will be respected. There is a difference from the rigid system of statutory control which, as the noble Lord knows, gave rise to so much trouble.
With regard to the questions asked me from the Liberal Front Bench, I am unable to say anything either about the first-time house purchaser or about London Transport. As I indicated in the Statement, there are certain special problems there in regard to under-manning. Negotiations are taking place between the employer and the London Transport unions concerned and this Statement. I have no doubt, will be taken into consideration. So far as retrospection is concerned the argument is a definite one, that the figure established here is one which has relation to this year. Therefore, one cannot say, retrospectively, that there was this difference between London and the Provinces last year. At the same time, some undertakings have been given in certain cases and I have no doubt that those will be borne in mind when negotiations are considered in the light of this Statement.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Statement is to be taken to imply that the Government will be prepared to provide the finance for the increases which arise under this formula, not only in respect of the central Government services within the ambience of Whitehall, but quasi-public services—such as demonstrators and assistants in scientific laboratories and so on—depending on Government grants for their continuation?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would be wrong of me to say—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, does not expect me to do so—that whatever agreement is reached between employers, whether public or otherwise, and the unions will be financed from public funds. Clearly, if a settlement is reached within the guide lines laid down here the consequences will have to be faced when the financing of any public authority is considered.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me if I say that he must not regard my question as unreasonable. Considerations of the kind I have ventilated must necessarily be in the minds of those who are negotiating on the employing side. I am talking about nonprofit making institutions where a very grave problem of this sort exists at the present time.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I absolutely agree with what the noble Lord said. Of course, those considerations must be taken into account. I am saying that I am not here going to lay down a rigid blanket rule as to what will happen.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am quite sure that he is—that this will give welcome increases of pay to teachers, firemen, local government clerical workers, local government manual workers and many others? Is he further aware that this will increase very considerably the expenditure of local authorities in and around London, and that this will necessitate increases in local rates? Therefore, do the Government intend to increase the rate support grant to these authorities, so that the ratepayers shall not have to bear an additional burden?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is putting in more concrete terms some of the problems which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, put to me earlier, and my answer to him must be the same. I am not going to say exactly what will happen in particular cases. It is interesting to realise that the full implementation of these recommendations will increase the cost. There is already a cost of London Weighting, and this will mean increasing the cost of London Weighting by £154·5 million a year, or 6½ per cent.
30
of the London pay bill, and will add about 0·38 per cent. to the total national pay bill. There are problems arising from this, which I have no doubt we all accept, but we must also accept that from all sides of the House there have recently been complaints about inferior services on public transport, about the understaffing of the police force in the metropolitan area and about the difficulty of getting teachers in the London area. One has to recognise that some of these things have to be paid for.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, will my noble friend answer a further question? Does this mean an end to the chaos in the town halls? I am not quite sure whether there is a "go slow" or an industrial dispute. Does it also mean an end to the fact that we do not get any printed matter in this House?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I would rather not say anything about the printed matter in this House. I should myself have thought—and I speak here without a note—that printers are already paid as London printers and do not qualify for the London Weighting Allowance. With regard to the chaos in the town halls, I hope it will now be possible to negotiate a settlement.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, when my noble friend said that the cost of this award will be £154·5 million, did that sum relate to the actual rises which will be paid to the actual people who are in employment today? Does it take account of the fact that this increase in pay will be an inducement to recruits to come forward so that in six months' time there may be an extra 20,000 or 30,000 teachers, local government clerks and so on in employment?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as usual, my noble friend has put his question so simply that I find it impossible to answer! Obviously I ought to know the answer, but I should not like to give him a definite reply without making further inquiries. I will do that, and let him know.
BARONESS HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, while welcoming the Statement made by the noble Lord and being in full agreement with the increases proposed, I wonder whether the noble Lord would feel that this differentiation between Inner and Outer London is

31
rather unrealistic?—because according to the experience of several Members of this House, if you are a teacher it is just as expensive to live in Croydon or Bromley as it is in Southwark. Those who have to commute to Inner London have ever-increasing fares. Would not the noble Lord think that doubling the amount for four miles round the City centre and giving only half the recommended rate for round the perimeter of Greater London is a very wide and discriminatory differentiation indeed?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying and I am quite certain there will be arguments about these boundaries. All I can say is that an objective and most thorough inquiry has taken place and the figures recommended here are based on that inquiry and not on the "hunch" or personal experience of any one of us. In certain cases it will be possible for an employer who employs people both inside and outside the suggested boundary—perhaps with depots outside—to come to an arrangement with employees, based on sharing the total amount available but on a different basis. This will be open to negotiation and I have no doubt that in certain cases it will help to offset the difficulties to which the noble Baroness has referred.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the problems to which he has drawn our attention, in so far as this economic weighting is being taken into account, is a universal problem throughout the world in large cities? Metropolitan man is now living in such conditions that the old-fashioned idea of private enterprise completely falls down. Therefore, I suggest we should be trying to study universally this problem of the attracting of mankind into huge cities which are unhealthy, noisome and conducive to the destruction of the best characteristics of the human being.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure that this is a question of private enterprise, but certainly I agree with the noble Lord that I myself am finding the idea of living outside the greater Metropolitan area increasingly attractive. However, unless something is done about pay scales the people living inside the
32
Metropolis will find themselves without any public services.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend who started this problem? Was it this Government or the previous Government?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the tendency for human beings to congregate together I think pre-dates both this Government and the last Government.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
CARRIAGE OF PASSENGERS BY ROAD BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
TOWN AND COUNTRY AMENITIES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

PRICES BILL
3.56 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT SIMON: I put down an Amendment to delete this clause from the Bill, because it seemed to me that the implementation of this clause will be largely impracticable, and, to the extent that it is practicable, its effect on balance may be more harmful than helpful. We have been in some difficulty over this clause because there has not really been a great deal of discussion about it. I seem to recollect it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on Second Reading. It is a pity that one

33
cannot refresh one's memory by referring to Hansard. I myself raised one or two points in connection with this clause and believe my recollection is correct when I say that the noble Lord who was replying to the debate did not comment on them.
I know that I shall be told, and quite rightly, that this is a clause which only gives the Secretary of State power to do various things but does not require him to do them; and also any Order which the Secretary of State decides to make is subject to annulment by Parliament, provided that is thought to be desirable. However, I do not think members of the Committee would differ from me when I say that discretionary powers should not be given to the Secretary of State, unless there is good reason to suppose they will be used and, if used, that they will be both effective and beneficial. As regards Parliamentary control through the Negative Resolution procedure, I think that noble Lords will agree that it is not an effective method of controlling Secretaries of State. We all know how difficult it is to apply that procedure. It has always to be applied in arrears, so that if harm and confusion has been caused it will already have been caused before Parliament has an opportunity of putting it right. Therefore, I hope we may proceed on the assumption that this clause is intended to be operated; otherwise it would be wiser to leave it out of the Bill.
I should like some information from Her Majesty's Government on how the Secretary of State is to get the information which he will require traders to display in their places of business. The clause says that information will be required:
"…with respect to the range of prices within which it appears to the Secretary of State that such goods are being commonly sold by retail in the United Kingdom, or in a particular part thereof,…"
I suggest that if the Committee decided to let this clause go forward the Government might consider between now and Report stage whether they should remove the reference to the United Kingdom. What is the use to anybody of having a range of prices put up in a shop in some area which relates to the United Kingdom as a whole, when either end of the range, or certainly the lower end, might not be available anywhere within the reach of the shopper. I mentioned this point on
34
Second Reading, but I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, replied to it. This seems a nonsensical arrangement.
The customer is only concerned about where he or she can get goods which are reasonably priced, and that can only be in the nearby vicinity. I do not imagine for a moment that the Secretary of State herself, or through direct agents, will go to every part of the country and discover the right figures to put on these notices. I think there was a hint that the local weights and measures inspectors might be employed. I notice in the Explanatory Memorandum that it is said that outside Central Government service a small increase in the staff of weights and measures authorities is possible. That does not seem to go very far in the direction of monitoring the range of prices which are commonly in operation at any given time in any given area. The weights and measures authorities are also employed by local authorities, and I would remind the Committee that local authorities nowadays cover a wide area, much too wide for the convenience of a shopper. In any rural district authority there may be 30 or 40 miles between one end and another. In my part of Devonshire it would be no good telling a housewife in Moretonhampstead that she could get things cheaper in Kingsbridge, because she would not dream of going there to make her purchases. If this is to be effective it has to be done in units smaller than a district council. This will involve a great many people in trying to establish what the correct figures are.
How is the list to be kept up-to-date? This seems extraordinarily difficult at the lower end of the range, and particularly after we heard recently of the agreement which the Government have reached with the trade about special prices which, if I understood the Statement correctly—and there was a question from the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, which brought this out—meant that there might be at one time a particular article given a special cut, but there might be a different article at another time. I imagine this might involve changes from day to day, and certainly from week to week. How are these ranges of prices to be kept up-to-date? After all, if a range of prices is put up with the authority of the Secretary of State, it is necessary for the Secretary of State, through her agents, to be at all

35
times responsible for the correctness of the statement.
There was one question that has not been touched upon: in putting up the range of prices is any account to be taken of such things as stamps, Co-operative dividends or special offers that accompany some goods offered for sale? All these things. within a small range, affect the price. I now come to another difficulty: where should notices of this range of prices be displayed? Whether one considers a small shop—sometimes called a "corner shop"—or a large supermarket, great difficulties will arise in the congestion which is bound to be created wherever these lists are put up. Whether the lists are useful or not, we may be sure that shoppers will, at least initially, tend to congregate around them to see what is written on them. Most of these shops—and this applies just as much to the big supermarkets as the small village store—have no room for the people to stand and stare; the shops are crowded already, especially on Saturday mornings and days like that. Confusion is going to arise with these notices. If the notice was displayed on the shop window there would be congestion on the pavements, and I should be surprised if the police did not have some views about that.
I suggested on Second Reading that it would be better that notices of this kind should be displayed in the post office or other public place where such notices are sometimes put up. My suggestion met with no response from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the Government have not put down an Amendment, so I assume they reject that idea. It might perhaps be considered again because, thinking of shops that I know and which I am sure other noble Lords know, there will be difficulties in having these notices displayed.
Then, if I may leave the practical difficulties, I want to ask the Committee to consider what the effect of this is on the customer. Let us assume the practical difficulties are overcome. I concede that there is some value in knowing the price range of the article which the customer is seeking to buy, particularly if the price range is a reliable indication of the ability to buy within that range somewhere in the neighbourhood. Unless the cheaper prices can in some way be identified the
36
customer will not be very much better off. Most customers know that prices in the supermarkets are lower than those in the small village stores. They weigh up whether it is worth going to a supermarket or whether they should deal in the place to which they are accustomed. Displaying the prices does not tell them very much more than they know already. It may only cause frustration and despondency, because they will say, "Why should I have to pay 18p here when I see somewhere else I can get this article for 16p?". Apart from the frustration and despondency which it may create in the customer, there is likely to be created a certain amount of friction and unpleasantness as between the customer and the shopkeeper. Although customers are well aware of the differences in prices, it is rather throwing it in their faces to say that here is a shop where you can buy the article for 18p and somewhere else you can buy it for 16p. I do not feel this is going to create a happy situation. I do not think that this is going to give much advantage to the customer at all.
I doubt also whether it is fair visually to remind the customer—here again going to the corner shop—of the one factor that the price is a little bit higher there than somewhere else when you cannot remind them visually of the counter advantages which are recognised but some of which cannot be easily expressed in terms of money. Is the object—and I hope it is not—of this proposal, in a rather indirect and unpleasant way, to pressurise the small trader and make him feel a little ashamed that his prices are higher than the minimum quoted somewhere else? In that way he is put under an indirect pressure to reduce his prices when we know that the small shops are not making much profit these days. I hope that is not the intention because I would think it rather unfair.
I have only one other point I would make and it arose out of something the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said in reply to the Amendment on Clause 2. The noble Lord referred in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to this question of ranges introduced in Clause 5. I did not quite follow the relevance of this. Perhaps whoever is going to reply to this question will be able to say how the range proposal contained in Clause 5 really ties up at all with Clause 2,

37
because Clause 2 deals with the regulation of prices, whereas, as I understand it, Clause 5 is concerned merely with information and not with regulation at all. I hope that the Government will be able to give us a little more explanation as to how this clause is intended to work. Naturally, I shall listen to what the Government have to say and reserve until later any remarks I have to make about the course I would recommend the Committee to pursue.
4.11 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: I would at once apologise to the noble Viscount for not having replied to the points he raised on the Second Reading. I believe I said that some of the points would be best dealt with in Committee. Let us assume that these points fall into that category. The clause makes provision which would be available to the Government on a permanent basis to provide factual information to shoppers about the range of prices at which goods are being offered As I explained at Second Reading, it is the Government's intention to use these powers in connection with subsidised foods for which the top of the range will he the maximum price prescribed under the provisions of Clause 2(1)(a). One objective of Clause 5 is to protect the small trader. As I said earlier in Committee, we appreciate that at one end of the scale we have the convenience shop which is of great convenience to the customer, to which he has not to travel and at which he can expect to pay a little more for the convenience. At the other end we have the supermarket which depends on cutting prices to obtain its trade; in order to cut prices it must have scale, and if it is going to have this scale it has to have a huge catchment area and consequently its customers are going to have some inconvenience. But of course in between is a great variety of shops. In particular there is what I would call the medium-sized shop, particularly in the suburbs of large towns. They have some merits of convenience in that a vast number of their customers can walk to the shop—the shop is placed in a congested area. They also have some of the advantages of scale in that they have a quite substantial turnover and therefore are able to some extent to cut prices. So we have this wide range of shops.
38
It is difficult to fix prices to cover the whole wide range without being unfair to somebody. The Secretary of State is trying to put herself in the position where she can fix a maximum which is fair to the small trader without encouraging other traders to climb up to it. For example, in the case of bread, I have no doubt whatever that when the Secretary of State fixes the maximum price, that price will almost certainly be a greater price than that at which some of the supermarkets are already selling, in order to cover the small trader and to be fair to him. But the Secretary of State is anxious that those stores which have lower costs should not climb up to the maximum price, and it is for that reason that she wishes to have the powers embodied in this clause. So in essence one of the objects is to protect the small trader. Outside the subsidised field my right honourable friend has made it clear that so long as the voluntary agreement is working satisfactorily the clause will be a reserve power only.
The noble Viscount suggested that a national price range will not be equally applicable to all areas. It is precisely because we recognise this that the clause gives us power to prescribe different ranges for different areas. Indeed, we shall probably have to do this in the case of bread. I can assure the noble Viscount that we are fully alive to this point. He also suggested that the shop was not the best place in which to display such ranges. While I think shoppers have a right to see information of this kind where it can be most immediately useful, I agree that other organisations have a valuable part to play in disseminating food price information. Indeed, it is the Government's earnest hope that it will be one of the functions of the consumer advice centres which we are encouraging local authorities to set up to collect and disseminate information about prices locally. This will be a most helpful voluntary service to supplement the national information the Government already put out. I hope therefore that the noble Viscount will be able to accept that we have broadly the same aims in view.
I should perhaps explain how the ranges will be determined and displayed. The ranges to be displayed will cover the prices at which the corner shop, with

39
its necessarily higher costs, and the most efficient supermarket are selling the goods in question. Shoppers will therefore have an objective standard of comparison for the prices of these key products. Information is available through Government sources which gives broad ranges of prices for about 80 food items. Ranges of these foods to which the provisions of the clause are to apply will be determined from this information. The range to be displayed will necessarily be a wide one, but not too wide. I understand that the present practice is to include within the range four-fifths of the sample excluding the extreme items in the sample at either end—which is reasonable. It is intended that the range will be displayed in a simple and conspicuous manner to ensure that the cost to shopkeepers of display is kept to a minimum and that the public is not confused by too many prices. The statutory consultations for which the clause provides will ensure that the trade's views on these matters are fully taken into account. That of course would also include some of the points which the noble Viscount mentioned, such as stamps. But I would say from a personal point of view that stamps should not be taken into account. The shopkeeper who offers stamps, whether a co-operative society or private trader, is implying that he is selling at competitive prices and that the stamps are something in addition.
I would direct the noble Viscount's attention to West Germany. In West Germany a range of prices for each of several commodities is displayed. We believe that West Germany's success in combating inflation is in part due to the way in which they have used such instruments. We are so convinced that we have taken the powers in this clause and, if need be, intend to use them. I hope the noble Viscount will accept that the clause will enable the Government to provide some much needed information to the public in an acceptable way; that the powers will be used sparingly and with discrimination, and that display will be simple and as inexpensive as possible for shopkeepers. I trust that he will accordingly feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD MERRIVALE: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for clarification
40
on a purely local point? Let us take the area of South Kensington and Knightsbridge where one finds, regarding fruit, vegetables, tinned foods, a great range of prices and great differentiation. Can the noble Lord say how often there will be a change in the display of the range of prices? If one goes to one shop one gets a certain price, and if one goes to another shop one gets a much lower or higher price; and if one goes on a Saturday evening the price is considerably lower. There is a great discrepancy, and I do not think that the shopper has any guarantee that he is getting the best value for money.
Taking as an example what is done abroad—I will not specify any particular country—there seems to be a lack of control regarding price fixing. In order that the consumer or buyer has the feeling that he is getting the best value for money and that the range of prices is being kept up to date by the Department and the Secretary of State, can the noble Lord say that these notices are kept up to date and changed regularly?
LORD JACQUES: It would be necessary for the Department first to experiment in price ranging in those commodities which are not perishable and which do not change from day to day. Clearly, those are going to be the most difficult. so far as prices for perishable goods are concerned, the prices of which change from day to day, the telephone is the best way of dealing with them. The Department already has a telephone service for this purpose which consumers can use.
LORD ABERDARE: I have listened with interest to what has been said in this short debate and to the noble Viscount who proposed this Amendment. In my view, it would be wrong to leave out this clause entirely. It seems to me that the more one can produce factual information for the shopper the better, and although there may be difficulties in operating the clause, in principle it would be wrong to omit the whole clause. It was fully discussed in another place. It has come to us and I do not feel able to support the noble Viscount in going so far as to remove it. What we are more concerned about—and this will emerge in the next Amendment—is the protection of the small shopkeeper.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for explaining his point of view and to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his full explanation. I cannot say that I am completely satisfied but it would not be my intention to press my point of view to a Division because by doing so we would lose the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare's next Amendment.
Between now and Report stage may I ask the Government to consider one or two points. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that it was only intended to use this provision in connection with subsidised goods. I do not suppose that he would think of confining the clause to subsidised goods. He recognised the irrelevance of a range covering the whole of the United Kingdom, and indicated that it would be done on a local basis. I hope that in this connection the localities will be small enough to be meaningful to the shopper. As he practically admitted that it would not be used, would the noble Lord consider an Amendment deleting the reference to the price range in the United Kingdom? Perhaps we could have a discussion about it between now and the next stage.
LORD JACQUES: I am sure that my right honourable friend, to whom I should have to go and to whom I am answerable for all promises I make, would not be prepared to accept an Amendment to confine the clause to subsidised goods. Let us be practical. In negotiating with the trade you need to have muscle, and you have muscle according to the power which you have behind you. This is a reserve power. It is partly because of these reserve powers that my right honourable friend was able to obtain the voluntary agreement. She has given an assurance, having obtained that agreement, that she will not use these powers except in relation to subsidised foods. That is the happy and businesslike way to go about it. I could not give the kind of assurance for which the noble Viscount has asked.
So far as the United Kingdom is concerned, we have power within the clause to give different prices for different areas. As I have said, we shall almost certainly have to do so in the case of bread.
Clause 5 agreed to.
4.27 p.m.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 5 insert the following new clause
Exceptions.
".—(1) No order made under subsection (b)of section 2 or under sections 4 or 5 of this Act (except an order relating exclusively to food subsidised under section 1 of this Act) shall apply to a person who carries on the business of selling food by retail in or from a shop and who:—

(a) has sales to which this section applies; and

(b) has no licence or interest in land in any other shop in or from which is carried on the business of selling any goods by retail.

(2) This section applies to sales where:

(a) the total annual sales were less than £25,000 in the course of the last complete account year of the enterprise ending on or before the date of coming into operation of the order; or

(b) if the enterprise has not been carried on for a complete account year before that date, the sales were less than £6,250 in the course of the last complete quarter before that date.

(3) It shall be a defence to any person prosecuted under paragraph 5 of the Schedule to this Act to show that he is a person to whom the provisions of this section refer."
The noble Lord said: This is a more formidable Amendment than the last Amendment I spoke to and I have to open with an apology. Your Lordships will see that there is a reference in the first line of the proposed amended Bill to "subsection (b)of Section 2." This should read "subsection (1)(b) of Section 2"; otherwise your Lordships will find that it has no meaning. I apologise for this piece of over-hasty drafting which has arisen out of the difficulties which have also produced the rather odd form in which all the Amendments are now before your Lordships.
This Bill aims to regulate the prices at which goods are sold and to keep them as low as possible, which is an estimable aim. Also it aims to provide a wide range of information to the shopper, which in itself may be an estimable aim. But what I wish to point out to your Lordships at this stage is the unlooked-for effect that this will have upon the small shopkeeper and upon his customer. It is those people whom we, by this Amendment, are seeking to protect.
If I may begin by defining what is meant by a small shopkeeper, since this must be done in a mathematical form which can be understood by the law, it refers to shops where the annual sales amount to £25,000 or less. We pitched on the phrase "annual sales" because in another place there was difficulty about identifying the meaning of the phrase "turnover". Therefore the phrase "total annual sales" has been taken from an Order—Statutory Instrument No. 785 of 1974—which was made by the present Government under the Counter-Inflation Act 1973; and as this phrase is used by them we can safely assume that the meaning of it is clear. The meaning may be clear legally, but it may not be clear to your Lordships' House exactly what kind of a shop it is that we are talking about. The simplest mathematical way of describing it would be to say that the best advice I can get is that a shop with sales of that order would be unlikely to be making an annual profit of more than £1,200. Your Lordships, especially those who would be sitting on the Bishops' Benches, were they here, could equate that with the now quite well known stipend of a newly appointed curate, or perhaps would find it more illuminating to realise that this brings the small shopkeeper himself within the bracket of the less well-off whom the Minister, by this Bill, is seeking to help. That is something to bear constantly in mind and there is an irony in it, as we shall see.
The next thing we have to do is to decide how many of these shops there are. There was loud alarm in another place about the enormous number of shops which would be affected by this. The honourable Member the Under-Secretary for Employment stated categorically in another place that a total of 25 per cent. of all food shops have an annual turnover of less than £25,000. This figure of one shop in four produced surprise, amounting almost to incredulity, among those in the trade with whom I discussed it. Therefore I came to reflect upon what might be the source of these figures. Apparently, no up-to-date figures are currently available to the public. The only ones that are more or less up to date which I can discover are those arising from the business census of 1971 and these are not yet available to the public.
44
I understand that they will be published in September, Presumably, however, they are available to Her Majesty's Government.
If that is the case and if it is upon these figures that the number of one in four—that is, about 25,000 shops—has been arrived at, I would draw your Lordship's attention to the fact that these are rather elderly figures. Inflation has been galloping on since they were accumulated and a shop which had a turnover of £25,000 in 1970, the year in which the figures were collated, would have to make a great deal more now simply to stay in the same place. This is the effect of inflation. It is a treadmill and one has to run faster and faster to stay where one was to begin with. So the number of shops concerned is small, but what is a great deal smaller is the amount of food that they sell in comparison with the amount of food sold by other food shops.
Mathematically that is the description of the shop, but I think one could describe it, in order to get it clearly in one's mind, more as the kind of shop which goes "ping" as you open the door, and from the edge of whose counter small children anxiously peer up at sweets. Some are cheerfully modern and some are cluttered; some specialise in food and more are general stores and a few aspire to be post offices as well. Such a shop is usually located in the centre of a community, very often a rural community, in which it retails gossip as well as goods, and to which it gives a great deal of the feeling of the identity of the community, which will vanish if it vanishes. Again I would remind your Lordships that the proprietor is probably getting a salary—for want of a better term—of £1,200 a year. So this is not an opulent and scarcely even a secure concern. Some would say that it was not viable already; in fact this shop that I am speaking of is in the position of a camel overloaded with straw. and the aim of this Amendment is to stop the last straw being dropped incontinently upon its back.
Let us consider first the disadvantages of the position of a small shop. Of course, the first and most obvious, is the disadvantage of concentrated overheads, with which your Lordships will be familiar; the bigger the size of the concern the more you can spread its expenses.

45
Secondly and more formidably is its exclusion from the discount benefits on large orders. This is a handicap which is increasing, and I wonder whether I might explain. First, most concerns wholesaling to such shops sell their goods at a lower price for a large quantity. This is perfectly normal.
There is a minimum case rate below which you get no discount and above which in steps (as it were on a ladder) you get increasing discount or a lower price per unit according to the number of units you buy. For instance, 1 lb. tin of Cadbury's Bournville cocoa at the 10-case rate, at present, so far as I can understand it, comes at 41·25 pence exclusive of V.A.T.; at the 400-case rate (and can your Lordships imagine 400 cases of Bournville cocoa in the shop that I have just described?) 37·50 pence is the price. Thus, there is a difference of 3·75 pence per tin on every tin sold over that counter and it is a disadvantage to that concern as against the large concern down the road. Does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
LORD JACQUES: Can the noble Lord bear in mind that one half of the independent retailers in the grocery trade are part of voluntary groups and, therefore, enjoy bulk buying?
LORD ELTON: So much the stronger my argument for saying that not too many shops will be affected by this Amendment. In reply to a request to the trade I was given a number of these sheets from which I took the first example which I have just quoted. The average of them, between the top and the bottom case rate, showed a difference of between 10 per cent. and 13 per cent. in the actual cost per unit to the purchaser. It goes further than that, because there is a minimum quantity, as I said, below which one does not qualify to get this reduced rate, and that minimum quantity is now being remorselessly raised. For instance, if I may quote another informant, John West's salmon for the 15½ ounce tin comes out at about £1 a tin wholesale; the minmum case rate used to be 20 cases of 24, i.e. one had to buy 480 tins in order to get the case rate. The minimum is now 50 cases of 24, which is 1,200 tins and, please note, a capital outlay of a minimum of £1,200 to stay in the game if you are to get the
46
discount. Other firms do not raise this minimum, but they charge an amount for delivery on the lower rates.
I will not go on with too many examples, because I think I have made the case and I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is better equipped with examples than I am. Therefore, I need only to jog his memory rather than drive the point home. However, there is another disadvantage to which the small retailer is subjected. He is really boxing in the dark because, although he has these lists, from which I have been quoting, giving the rates at which he might assume the competition is buying its own supplies, when he goes into the town on early closing day he sees prices marked in the windows of the supermarket which are below what apparently they could have been bought for. These are not loss leaders; they are wholesale goods bought at a private contract between the multiples and the suppliers direct.
We have here a man—or very often a woman—who is already overburdened and under-rewarded and the Bill lays upon him the prospect of even more work, some of which has the effect of requiring him to advertise, at no cost to them, the competitors' prices in a local town. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred to this earlier and I am grateful to him for doing so. If this has the effect which one cannot help expecting the Minister to foresee, some of those customers in the rural community who have transport of their own, or who are blessed with public transport, will remove their custom to the town—in fact, if they do not do so there seems little point in the exercise. If they experiment in that way, if only for a short time, this will bring the village shop into grave danger. Therefore, what Her Majesty's Government have achieved for the shopkeeper is not a smaller fur coat for his wife, not that he has to keep his large motor car for an extra year or take a shorter holiday in Greece, because this man is one of the much less well-off that Her Majesty's Government wish to help. They have given him an extra couple of hours' work each week, and I suspect those hours would have been spent in well-earned rest because these men are already overworked and under-rewarded. The chances are that as a result the man or woman will say that the game is no

47
longer worth the candle and will shut up shop. That is a very definite possibility.
So now we come to the consumers, that other less well-off group which Her Majesty's Government are seeking to assist in the Bill. Your Lordships are familiar with the acute problem of rural transport; many facets of it were rehearsed in a recent debate in your Lordships' House, where your Lordships wisely returned to the Road Traffic Bill some provisions which had been dropped from it since it was last seen here. You are therefore aware that the least likely person to have a motor car is that less well-off person. In a Norfolk survey not so long ago it was found that in five parishes only 29 per cent. of the retired and 30 per cent. of farm workers had transport of their own. These people will either have to go at an average rate of about 30p for a 10 mile return trip to the local town to get their goods at the rates which are advertised in the village store, or else they will be stuck without being able to get them at all.
Thus, if Her Majesty's Government wish to help the elderly and less well-off they are going an odd way about it. The retired and the farm workers are among these people; many of the former and just about all of the latter live in rural communities, served by the kind of shops of which I have spoken, and many of both categories have no private transport and no public transport either. Her Majesty's Government, professing for them their undying sympathy, obligation and regard, introduce a measure which will have for many of them the effect of closing down their only supply of food. Therefore I ask the Committee to consider carefully this Amendment which will remove from the small shop keeper one of the largest administrative, and, from the point of view of the Government, the least expensive, burdens. I beg to move.
4.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I think that the case made by my noble friend for the small shopkeepers is one we ought to regard with great sympathy. Small shopkeepers in general render great service to the community. From my experience, very few of them make an extravagant income out of the services they render. In fact, if their time per hour were worked out, very often it would come to
48
to a very modest rate indeed, as was hinted by my noble friend. To me, all was made instantly clear when my noble friend mentioned the shop that went "ping" when one opened the door. At first sight, I thought his Amendment could be abbreviated somewhat by confining the exemptions automatically to a shop that went "ping", but I realise that that would carry the necessity of putting the instruments that make the "ping" under licence, with terrible penalties for anyone whose shop went "ping" without a licence. So perhaps the Amendment of my noble friend as it stands is the right one. In principle, I am sure we should do well to pay great attention to everything that he has said. These small shops generally, at the end of the day, have extremely modest margins non-existent in many cases. If they were not able to stay in business, most of the communities concerned would be very much worse off.
LORD ORR-EWING: May I add a word or two on behalf of the village shopkeepers. In my own village there is a single village shop which is open seven days a week—it has to be, in order to provide a living—although I do not know whether that is correct. I have seen three separate owners give up and others take over the shop because the increasing load of administration is too much for a husband and wife. V.A.T. has added to this burden. I asked the previous Government whether they could not raise the level of V.A.T. in order to bring some of the small shops under the turnover—a figure of £5,000 a year at present—which has no V.A.T. levied on it.
In our small village in Hertfordshire, the public bus service was withdrawn. In rather significant and unpleasant circumstances we were told that the rumour was totally untrue, but suddenly we found one Saturday that all the bus stops were being removed. On the following Monday morning, the bus service was stopped so there was no possibility for the 70 per cent. enumerated by my noble friend Lord Elton to make other arrangements. We "ganged together" and subscribed to a minibus. We then found that many of the old-age pensioners were turned off it because it was not allowed to carry more than five or six passengers. The old-age pensioners could not even go out of the

49
village to do their shopping in the town of Hertford.
So we have seen a steady but slow eroding of village shops all over the country. I know under the new Transport Bill we have now allowed minibuses to be operated. We are to have post buses, a very successful experiment in Switzerland. I filled up a form over this week-end, in which the Post Office asked whether there was a case in our household (I am glad they are taking this into consideration) for running a post bus from our village to the county town of Hertford. I noticed from the timetable that a 10-mile journey was timed at 50 minutes. Here again, if we drive the local shop out of business, we are going to put an extra burden on the less well off, in that they will take 50 minutes to do the journey, and the bus would have taken only 15 minutes. Time and time again we are putting an added burden on the less well off and the village shops in particular, so I hope the House will take very seriously the sensible and humane Amendment of my noble friend to this clause.
LORD SOMERS: May I also bear witness to the truth of what other noble Lords have said. In Epsom where I live, we have very few shops where one can buy anything at all. There are a few left and they are small, privately owned shops. One of them is definitely of the type which could he called the local village shop, where one can buy practically anything. I am quite certain that the owner of the shop does not make a large income, but it is absolutely invaluable to the poorer people who live in the immediate vicinity. Incidentally, it is extremely valuable to the rest of us who live in Epsom. If that kind of shop were to go, we most certainly should be very much worse off, and I really do not know where we should go.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: I have every sympathy with the small retailer, but one has to consider what effect the Bill as it stands will have. It may have an adverse effect in two ways; first, because it may make it more clear that the village shop is charging more. I do not view that very seriously. I think people are already well aware of this. Those who are not possibly will benefit by being told and by being given the option. I admit there
50
is a point here, but I do not attach a great deal of validity to it.
The second disadvantage may be the extra work entailed in setting out the prices. Here again, from all we have heard, I do not believe that this is a very serious objection. So on balance, I do not think I would support this Amendment because it makes an exception to the Bill which is undesirable. I do not believe it is really necessary.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COM MITTEES (BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY): Before the Minister replies, and with the permission of the House, I should like to read an alteration in the Amendment which is:
"… No Order made under subsection (1) (b)of Section 2 or under Sections 4 or 5 this Act…".
That is in the first paragraph. I do not know whether it is any clearer to your Lordships than it is to me, but perhaps the Minister will be able to explain.
4.48 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: I understand it, and will be dealing with that point. This new clause deals with a subject very fully debated on two occasions during the passage of the Bill in another place. Before I come to the details of the clause, perhaps I may say a word about the general objectives of the Government in this area. We are all aware that there is widespread concern about the cost of living. The Government have embarked on the important tasks of holding down the prices of essential foods of particular importance to the elderly and others on low incomes. They are providing better information for shoppers. That is the primary purpose of the Bill. In operating its provisions, we shall try to achieve a balance between the genuine needs of the consumer and the very real interests of the shopkeeper. This includes the small shopkeeper.
It may be interesting in this connection to recall that the smaller shopkeepers have been among the greatest enthusiasts for the concept of lower margins on essential foodstuffs and other goods. Indeed, it was one of the voluntary groups of smaller grocers, Spar, Vivo, which made the original proposal for a voluntary agreement on price restraint of the kind which the Government have succeeded in negotiating. Therefore, it

51
is clear that among this important sector of the independent grocery trade, at least there is no fear of what the Government are trying to do. Outside the subsidised area, as your Lordships may be aware, the Secretary of State has already made it clear that she does not intend to use her powers under this clause while the voluntary agreement with the trade is working satisfactorily, so there is no risk there.
Retailers with an annual turnover of less than £250,000 a year—not £25,000 a year as mentioned in this clause, but ten times that amount—are excluded from the 10 per cent. cut in gross margin reference levels. These traders are participating in the voluntary agreement. Their representatives have assured the Secretary of State that they will be asking their members to co-operate to the fullest extent possible. The shopkeepers themselves feel more able to help the Government in their vital task of combating inflation than noble Lords opposite give them credit for.
LORD ELTON: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, I should point out that this Amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with price fixing, about which the noble Lord is speaking. Repeatedly he has made the point that the small shopkeepers are exempted or favourably treated, or are asked to do something in relation to price fixing. But this Amendmene is about price labelling and price range displays.
LORD JACQUES: I was just coming to that point and was going to say how astonished I am at the line the debate has taken. If this Amendment were carried, it would not make one penn'orth of difference to the profits of the small trader. This Amendment is dealing merely with the display of prices under Clauses 2, 4 and 5. It does nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from regulating prices. The Secretary of State can regulate prices under Clause 2. All this Amendment says is that they shall not be displayed. I do not see what sense there is in that. If the Secretary of State can regulate prices, surely she has a right to say that those prices should be displayed so that the customer as well as the shopkeeper knows what they are.
52
Let me come to the effect on Clause 4. Clause 4 is in no way concerned with price regulation; it is concerned only with the display of traders' own prices, whatever they may be. I hope there will be a general measure of agreement that better price information for shoppers constitutes a valuable measure of assistance for all concerned. The marking of prices, and the giving of the unit price where this is helpful, is something which I am sure most noble Lords will agree should be available as widely as possible. It is the Government's intention that orders providing for price marking or unit pricing should be framed in such a way that few, if any, food shops will find it difficult to comply with one or other of the agreed alternative forms of marking. There have already been some preliminary discussions with retail organisations representing small grocers and other food retailers about the operation of Clause 4. They have been assured that there will be opportunities for them to comment on specific proposals for accommodating the special problems of their members, and to recommend how their interests might best be served. There should, therefore, be no cause for concern so far as Clause 4 is concerned.
We have already had a debate about the third clause, Clause 5, to which this Amendment would apply, so I shall not weary the House by repeating the arguments that were put then. Noble Lords will understand that the concept of Clause 5 is very similar to Clause 4, in that both are designed to improve the price information available to the shopper. I sought in my comments in relation to Clauses 2, 4 and 5 to show that the fears of noble Lords opposite about the operation of this part of the Bill are unfounded, and that they are not, generally speaking, shared by representatives of the trade to whom we have spoken. In moving this Amendment, the noble Lord said that the figure of one-quarter of all food shops with a trade of £25,000 a year is now out of date. Why is it out of date? It is because of the rate of inflation. This, I suggest, merely shows the need for the kind of Bill which is at present before the Committee.
I recognise, of course, that the new clause does not seek to deal with all food shops, and deals only with the independent food shops. Nevertheless, it is a fact

53
that a substantial number of shops could be exempt from the provisions dealing with price regulation, price marking and the display of price range information. In 1973, 39 per cent. of the grocery trade was in the hands of independent shopkeepers, many of them with a turnover of less than £25,000 a year. This would be a fairly considerable incursion into the protection for the consumer which this Bill affords. Indeed, in some parts of the country the effect would be even more damaging, since outside the large towns it is probable that a much larger proportion of the food shops have a turnover of below £25,000 a year. This means that the benefits of better price information would be very unevenly distributed throughout the country, which would be to the detriment of the trade and consumer alike.
Moreover, research invariably shows that it is the elderly, the infirm and those with low incomes who tend to go to the small grocer for food, rather than to the multiples who employ much more sophisticated systems of pricing and price display. It would be quite wrong to deprive these people automatically of the consumer benefits to be derived from Clauses 2, 4 and 5.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, because I am going back a little way. When he was starting his last passage, did he say, and did he really mean, that the effect of the Amendment would be to remove these small shops from price regulation? I do not think he meant that, because the Amendment does not refer to price regulation.
LORD JACQUES: If I said that, I was wrong and I apologise, but I do not think I said that. I said that the effect of the Amendment would not be to remove the small shops from price regulation; the Secretary of State would still be able to regulate the prices. What this Amendment does is to remove the necessity for the small shopkeeper to display prices under Clauses 2, 4 and 5, and I hope I said that earlier. I also added that I thought it made little sense for the Secretary of State to he able to regulate the prices, but not to insist that the customer be informed of the price.
54
I should also like to emphasise to the Committee that a very large proportion of the specialist shops—in butchery, fish and greengrocery—are independent shops. A very large proportion have a turnover of less than £25,000 a year because they are specialists, because they trade in a restricted range of commodities. These are the trades where unit pricing is essential from the consumer's point of view. These are the trades where there is no sale by prescribed quantities. These are the trades in which the customer asks for a fillet of fish or a piece of steak, or even specifies a weight and says, "I want half a pound of cooked meat". The shopkeeper often replies, "It is a little more than half a pound. Will you take that?", and the customer usually takes it, which is to the advantage of both the shopkeeper and the consumer.
But in those circumstances the customer has a right to know not merely the amount she has paid, but the price per pound, the price per unit that she is being charged, and the shopkeeper has a moral obligation to supply that information by simply putting a ticket upon the goods. We are asking for the powers to insist that that be done. This Amendment is to avoid our having those powers so far as the small shopkeeper is concerned. I am sure the noble Lord did not have this in mind, but the effect of this Amendment in the area of unit pricing is this. There are a few who fiddle. Let them fiddle in peace and not be disturbed. We want to stop the few who fiddle by enabling the consumer to be fully informed.
This new clause would make much more difficult the enforcement of orders in the remaining shops. In practice, it would not keep out only the shops with a turnover of £25,000 a year or less. It would keep out far bigger shops, because the inspectorate service would naturally keep away from all shops which they thought might have a turnover of only around £25,000. They would not want to waste their time because they would know that that would be a defence. They would not want to be involved in an argument as to whether the turnover was £25,000 or £30,000 per annum. So that in practice you would exempt a much larger number of shops because of this attitude which would inevitably be taken by the Inspectorate.

55
The Institute of Trading Standards Administration is strongly opposed to provisions of this kind for practical enforcement reasons. Why are they opposed to them? They are opposed to them because in provisions of this kind you always have anomalies, and sometimes you have injustices. Can I give one or two examples. I have already said that 39 per cent. of the grocery trade is done by independent shopkeepers, most of them having a relatively small turnover. One half of them are symbol shops—that is to say, one-half of the independent shopkeepers involved in this 39 per cent. of the food trade have given up some of their independence, have joined in a chain. They have joined in a chain in order to get the benefits of bulk buying. But very often the matter goes far beyond bulk buying: as part of the price that they pay for their goods, they make a contribution to advertising. The advertising is concerned very largely with prices, and consequently they lose control of prices policy, which passes over to the chain.
At what point does the independent trader cease to be independent? Surely we must take that into account? In many of our villages just a few years ago the principal competitors were the local cooperative societies and the independent traders. Both of these institutions have had to give up some of their independence in their fight against the supermarkets. The independent trader has joined in the voluntary chain. He has given up some of his independence to obtain bulk buying. He has given up the independence of fixing his own prices, and so on. Similarly, the local village co-operative society has had to give up some of its independence in order to get the advantages of bulk buying. It has had to join with the bigger co-operative society in the town.
But what does this Amendment say? It says that if you are an independent trader then you are exempt from all these conditions laid down in this Bill, but if you are a co-operative society you are not exempt. That is an anomaly; indeed, it is an injustice. I am not prepared to argue that the co-operative stores should be exempt; I am arguing that all should be included. I would point out that the small trader is included in every other
56
law that affects the trade; for example, any law which affects hygiene or weights and measures involves the small trader. Why should not the laws relating to consumer protection also involve the small trader? After all, we are only discussing the display of prices, not price regulation.
I should like to give one more example. A few years ago I was in America and I came across a remarkable chain, and it was not the only one of its kind. It was supposed to be a chain of independent traders, but in point of fact the owner of the warehouse owned all the shops. He rented the shops to individuals, and it was one of the conditions that the individual bought all his goods from the central warehouse. The goods from the central warehouse were charged out at retail less a commission. So in point of fact the so-called independent retailer received a commission out of which he paid his expenses, including the rent, and the balance that was left was his. It was a kind of "lump" inside the retail trade. Is it the intention that that kind of chain should be exempt? It would be under this proposed clause. If that chain came to this country—and that is not an outlandish idea, because we already have American chains in our High Streets—under the proposed clause it would be totally exempt from these elementary needs of the consumer regarding the display of prices under Clauses 2, 4 and 5. Indeed, we need not go so far as America to find the case of a chain being in the position that it can get away from the needs of consumer protection. The independent trader who wishes to open another shop, but wishes to be exempt from the elementary needs of consumer protection, can form another company, and that company can own the second shop. Another company can own the third shop, and so on. By having each of his shops owned by a separate company—which is a person, in law—he would escape the elementary needs of consumer protection contained in Clauses 2, 4 and 5.
In conclusion, I can assure the noble Lord that we shall consider fully the position of the small shops, and particularly the specialist retailers, and we shall be in close consultation with them. We are as anxious as noble Lords opposite that Orders under these clauses should not place unduly onerous obligations on small shopkeepers, or drive them into financial

57
difficulties; but we do not believe that it would be right that they should play no part in the Government's efforts to help the consumer. Any exemptions should not be in the Statute; exemptions should be in the Orders. Each Order is different; each Order covers an entirely different subject and entirely different sets of circumstances. In come cases the small trader should be included, in other cases he need not be included. Surely that is the way to grant exemption, not in the Statute. I hope in the light of the explanations I have given noble Lords opposite will feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I do not want to go into the points that the noble Lord has just made in an impassioned speech on the merits of the new clause, but when a proposal of this sort was put forward in another place various technical difficulties were raised on the way it was then drafted, and we have carefully sought to go through these piece by piece in order to remove the disadvantages which were then seen by the Government. I observe that the noble Lord is extremely fully briefed on this clause by his advisers, so could he advise us whether there are still technical difficulties of a major nature, because I am sure that we would not wish to put something in which is wholly faulty? I rather gather from what he said that we have now got over the difficulties of defining turnover, and the difficulties of the inspectors having to look at all the books before they decide whether or not a shop is exempt, because we have put the burden of proof on the shopkeeper. Whether the noble Lord likes it or not we have at any rate produced a definition of "independence", which was previously not very well dealt with. Has the noble Lord other technical criticisms? If so, we should like to know in order that we may be able to put them right.
LORD JACQUES: I have no technical criticisms other than those which I have given.
5.9 p.m.
LORD ELTON: The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has carried an impressive head of steam an impressive distance in his objections to this Amendment. I have paid great attention to what he said. I would point out that in phrasing this
58
Amendment we have embraced the smallest possible number of shops of the smallest possible size, and limited the area of our intereference with the action of the Bill to the minimum possible area. I would repeat what I said when the noble Lord kindly gave way to me, that the earlier part of what he said lacked force because we seek to do nothing to interfere with the price-fixing arrangements of the Bill. One could make out a case even for that, but we have not done so.
I would really like noble Lords to consider the burden of work which is being placed on these unfortunate people. If you have not had the onerous task of pricing a great number of things in the commercial way, then think of the running of a parish bazaar and tombola stall, and imagine that every ticket had to have on it the numerous extra provisions which the Minister has power to insist upon under paragraph (d) of Clause 4(2), where different provisions are made in relation to different circumstances and may contain such supplementary provisions that the Secretary of State may think necessary or expedient. This could be no small task. The noble Lord has experience in this form of trade, although I suspect that it was in a larger unit than that which we are now looking at so sympathetically. Only in the last phrases of his eloquent and moving speech did the noble Lord show the first vestiges of sympathy towards the small trader. He suggested that, unintentionally though it may be, we were aiding and abetting the fiddler. Far be it from us to do any such thing.
LORD JACQUES: But the noble Lord is doing it, whether he wants to or not. I said plainly that although it may not be the purpose of the Amendment, the effect was to allow the fiddler to get away with not unit pricing and to do it in peace.
LORD ELTON: I have two points to make on that. First, a fiddler who has a turnover of only £25,000 a year is not a successful one. On the larger scale, I perhaps gave way too soon, because I was about to say that the noble Lord had not suggested any way in which the Amendment might be altered in order that the fiddler could be excluded under the unit pricing. This would be possible but it has not been suggested. That is

59
why I feel that Her Majesty's Government are hostile to the small trader, which they should not be.
All it comes down to is that Her Majesty's Government are laying upon the small trader, who performs a valuable and not very remunerative service to many people in scattered and isolated communities, extra hours of work and the danger of a reduction in an already small return. At the end of his speech, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said with some passion that the exemptions should not be in the Bill but in the Order. I hope very much that he will be able to amplify that statement and give some form of undertaking which will give us reason at least to take the Amendment away and reconsider it, and give him an opportunity to tell us, in what way, upon what grounds, within what guidelines and at what standards these exemptions would be operative. If he could tell us what these would be, how he will arrive at them and to what extent we can count on their continuance, then it would be possible for us to think again and discuss the matter between today and this day week when I understand the next opportunity for debate will arise.
LORD JACQUES: From hard practical experience I would say that there is nothing in the Bill which will increase the burden of work in pricing. The burden of work in pricing has nothing to do with the things in the Bill. The burden of work in pricing arises first of all in the calculations that will have to be made in putting the on-cost on to the buying price and arriving at the new price. The placing of the ticket upon goods is not a major fact of work. It was suggested that I had not shown how fiddlers might be excluded. I can tell noble Lords how fiddlers might be excluded. There is only one way of dealing with fiddlers, be it in this area or not; that is, to make it an offence, no matter what the alternative is. That is what the Government want to do.
On the question of the order giving exemptions, I see great possibilities in that. For example in making an order it might be possible for the Secretary of State to decide that the range of prices need not be shown in shops below a certain turnover. For example, in the case of subsidised foods, the Minister is
60
trying to prevent the large supermarket from raising its price to the maximum price which has been determined bearing the small shopkeeper in mind. If the Secretary of State is, through price ranging, trying to put pressure on the larger shopkeeper, she could decide that that kind of range of prices need be displayed only in the largest shops and not in all shops. There are so many possible alternatives and so many different circumstances that each one would have to be considered entirely separately.
If there is to be any exemption for the small trader, I believe that all the circumstances must be borne in mind. Since they vary considerably, each case will have to be considered on its merits; that is each order and not the Statute as a whole. I remind the Committee that the question before it is not whether there should be price regulation; not whether small traders' profits should be affected one way or the other. The question is whether the small trader should carry out those practices which are necessary for consumer protection, such as the display of prices and unit pricing. That is what the Amendment is all about.
LORD ELTON: If the noble Lord would be kind enough to undertake before the weekend to give us some more detailed indication of the standards of exemption or application of orders we could consider them before we meet again on the Report stage. In other words, such further information would help to expedite the business of the House if it should allow us to withdraw the Amendment. I should like to know whether I could meet the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and extract a little more detail from him direct.
LORD JACQUES: I give an assurance that I will discuss this question with my right honourable friend. I will then make contact with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and hope to be able to satisfy him.
LORD ELTON: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Power to abolish Pay Board]:
5.18 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ABERDARE: I cannot let Clause 6 pass without a brief comment. I do not intend to repeat what I said on Second Reading. The clause only gives power to the Secretary of State by order to abolish the Pay Board, and the order would be subject to the Affirmative Resolution of both Houses. In those circumstances we will have an opportunity to debate the Order itself.
During the Statement on London Weighting this afternoon I commented that it seemed odd to abolish the Pay Board and at the same time to praise it for a useful Report on London Weighting. The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, told me that it was another example of a guideline being given for the new regime of voluntary wage bargaining. We take the view that these guidelines, admirable as they may be in themselves, are unlikely to stick. All the evidence that one sees daily in the papers is that every trade union takes the view that the social compact is a fine idea, but that in its own case there arc so many anomalies and difficulties that it is a special case, and until its own special case has been put right it does not feel happy with the proposed guidelines. We have debated this subject thoroughly in the past and will go on doing so in the future. It would not be appropriate for me now, other than to make these few remarks, to oppose the clause.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I wish to add a word or two to what my noble friend has said. The clause deals with an important matter. I realise that this is not the occasion to debate again the principle behind it. I realise, too, that the power given by the clause is not mandatory but permissive. But there are many of us who feel that if the Price Commission is to be operated while the Pay Board is abolished, it will leave a hopelessly unbalanced system. There is so much we do not know about the future. We do not know what the vacuum will be, whether there will be an intention to fill it in any other way, or whether incomes will be allowed to rise freely when the dam is removed. It would not be out of place to say that there are many of us who are very unhappy about the proposal to abolish one of these boards, while continuing to operate the other.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, indicated, your Lordships will have an opportunity to discuss this matter again under the Affirmative Resolution procedure if the Government produce it—as indeed they will. But I would make one point to the noble Lord. I recognise that the last Government had a number of particularly difficult problems in this field and that, especially in the last year of their life, they had the exceedingly difficult problem of rapidly escalating commodity prices. Nevertheless, the existence of a statutory policy in the last twelve months of their life coincided with the highest degree of price inflation we have ever known in this country. I say no more than that I do not think it behoves any of us to be too self-righteous about this problem, which is one of exceeding and considerable difficulty.
The statutory policy of the Labour Government certainly did not succeed. I think it is also true that the statutory policy of the last Conservative Government did not succeed. The present Administration is at the moment attempting, with the co-operation of the T.U.C., to fashion a voluntary policy, and all we can say so far is that, as the noble Lord will be aware, we have had the statement made by the T.U.C. last week—which was a very welcome statement so far as the Government are concerned—expressing the strong approval felt by the T.U.C. of the economic and social policies being pursued by the present Government. All I would say is that none of us on this Bench would under-estimate in any way the difficulties of pursuing successfully a voluntary policy. But I do not think any of us should forget our experience of the very substantial and real difficulties of a statutory policy. With that relatively short statement of the position from this Bench, I shall sit down, aware of the fact that we will return to this matter within a week or so.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule [Enforcement]:
5.22 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE LORD ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 10, line 7, after ("may,") insert ("provided that he has reasonable cause to assume that an offence has been committed,").
The noble Lord said: It might be helpful if we discussed Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. We have not had very great success as the Government have not been showing their usual flexibility this afternoon, and the least we can hope, therefore, is that we shall be able to persuade them to make these very useful Amendments in the Schedule. Their object is to put a modest limit on the very sweeping powers of enforcement that are in the Schedule as at present. Paragraph 3(1) talks about:
"A duly authorised officer of the Secretary of State or of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food",
who may operate these powers. Then, under paragraph 4 the powers conferred by paragraph 3 shall
"… also be exercisable by any officer of a department, board, authority or body with which the Secretary of State has made arrangements … and who is designated for the purposes … by the Secretary of State".
So there is a wide range of people who can use these enforcement powers.
The powers are very sweeping. Under paragraph 3(2) they are,
"(a) a power to inspect and take samples of any goods and to enter any land or any premises other than premises used only as a dwelling; and
(b)a power to require any person carrying on a business, or employed in connection with a business, to produce any documents relating to the business",
and so on. These seem to be enormously sweeping powers. We realise that certain enforcement powers are necessary, but all we are attempting to do by these Amendments is to limit them in two ways.
Amendment No. 5 is to ensure that before an officer uses these powers he has reasonable cause to assume that an offence has been committed. I should have thought that that was self-evident. I should have thought that these authorised people would not in practice want to snoop around in these shops and take samples of flour, or whatever they are going to do, unless they think that there has been some offence committed. So I hope that the noble Baroness, who I think is to reply, will be able to assure me that these authorised persons will not be entering shops, taking samples, looking at the books and taking extracts, unless they really think that an offence has been committed before they go there.
The second Amendment, No. 6, merely makes the point that if they are going to take documents or copies of documents then, at least, they should take copies of relevant documents. Otherwise, the paragraph as it stands at the moment gives them power to require a person to produce any document relating to the business. I should have thought that the word "relevant" was very relevant in this instance. I beg to move.
BARONESS BIRK: I do not know whether I can be as flexible as the noble Lord opposite asked me to be. But I can assure him that the very sinister-sounding list of things which he read out at the end really do not apply to this Bill, and that his Amendments, while he may consider them relevant, are in fact quite unnecessary because the effects do not follow from what he has pronounced as the causes here. I can understand quite clearly the reasons why these Amendments have been moved, because on one reading there may be some concern felt that powers should not be given which allow access to premises and documents without any reason for such intrusion being given. I believe, and will show, that in fact this is not so, by the way the Bill has been drafted.
I can see that noble Lords may envisage businessmen being harassed by inspections which have no bearing on the food subsidy payments, and also that information obtained under these powers may be used for other purposes. Noble Lords have also observed, I am sure, that the powers given in paragraph 9 to a duly authorised officer of a local weights and measures authority are exercisable only for the purpose of determining whether an offence has been committed, and I imagine that it is this which has led the noble Lord to feel that a similar limitation should be set on the powers in paragraph 3(2). I shall try to explain why a limitation which is appropriate in paragraph 9 of the Schedule is not appropriate in paragraph 3.
In paragraph 9 it is possible to speak of,
"… determining whether an offence … has been committed",
because if there is reason to think that a price regulation order has been breached there is then suspicion of an offence; if not, there is nothing to investigate. But

65
in paragraph 3 we are not only taking powers to investigate suspected offences, but are also providing for checks that payments have been correctly made and that breaches have not been committed. In fact, I am drawing a distinction between an offence and a breach or, if you like, an abuse. Your Lordships are well aware that considerable sums of money have been committed to these food subsidies, and what paragraph 3 of the Schedule does is to confer powers on duly authorised officers to check on the proper operation of the subsidy schemes. Here the officers in question, probably the audit staff of the Ministry of Agriculture, may, for example, need to satisfy themselves that a baker in receipt of subsidy has used the subsidised flour for the manufacture of bread, and not for Bath Oliver biscuits.
The subsidy funds are aimed at helping those in need and I am quite sure, from what has been said throughout the passage of the Bill, that your Lordships would agree that all appropriate measures should be taken to ensure that, so far as possible, they are not diverted to other purposes. Whether or not there is evidence to suggest that a firm has breached the conditions of a subsidy scheme, inspection on a spot-check basis may be necessary. In most cases, one cannot find out whether there has been abuse or a breach committed until a check has been carried out. I believe that the Department would be failing in its duty if it were not prepared to conduct these checks in the case of any firm which has been in receipt of public funds.
The second reason for resisting the Amendment is that a breach of subsidy conditions will not necessarily constitute an offence, and I do not really think that your Lordships would want us to create more offences than are necessary. At the moment, it is a question of discovering whether there has been abuse of the use of the subsidy—and there is one concerned that the subsidy should be repaid to the Secretary of State—which is more important than creating an offence and taking proceedings under the erosion. However, steps have been taken to allow certain conditions relating to subsidy payments to be made enforceable by Order and paragraph 2 of the Schedule provides that such conditions will apply not only to the claimant but also to subsequent
66
sub-purchasers prior to the retail level. A breach of the conditions contained in an Order would constitute an offence. However, if the Amendment was passed it would limit the powers of inspection to cases where an offence was suspected and it would not be good enough for the inspectors' hands to be tied in this manner where the Department is to be accountable for the correct expenditure of subsidy funds. In this case, there would be no alternative but to incorporate in Orders all the conditions which at present exist in contracts so that every breach would become an offence. I am quite sure that the noble Lord would not consider this desirable.
Having said this and having said that this is the reason why I shall have to resist the Amendment, I should also like to emphasise that an inspector does not have a right to exercise his powers of entry and inspection completely at random and that the Bill as drafted has already clearly circumscribed the powers which are given in paragraph 3(2). In paragraph 3(1) it is stated that there are two purposes for which the powers may be exercised. On the one hand, they may be used to determine whether the subsidy payment has been correctly paid or whether a repayment is due because a condition has been breached or the food has been exported. On the other hand, the powers may be used to determine whether conditions relating to subsidy payments, which are prescribed by Order, have been contravened. This is the parallel to the phrase in paragraph 9 to which I have referred and which the Amendment seeks to introduce. Rights of inspection do not exist outside these purposes and, as the purposes are defined in this way, the further safeguard condition proposed in the Amendment is not necessary and would indeed defeat the object of the exercise.
In the light of this explanation, I hope that the noble Lords will not press their Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was kind enough to take the two Amdenments together. They are interlinked so that, if noble Lords will hear with me for a moment, I will go on to speak of the second Amendment, which introduces the word "relevent" to the production of any documents. I imagine that it is a similar concern which links the two together, so I will not go over

67
the ground again. I should have thought that it was quite clear from what I have already said as a background to the explanation of the conditions covering both the clauses, that the Bill as drafted gives an officer no power to demand totally extraneous documents. For example, he could not possibly demand to see the Managing Director's gas bill or anything like that. The documents must be "relating to the business", as stated in paragraph 3(2)(b). Secondly, the power to require the production of documents, like all the powers under paragraph 3(2) is limited by the overriding provisions of paragraph 3(1). In the case of orders under Sections 2, 4 and 5 concerning the regulation of prices, and the display of information about prices, the purpose must be that described in paragraph 9(1).
The introduction of food subsidy schemes has required the close-cooperation of the trade, so that they are already aware of the kind of document which will be required for inspection. Claimants of subsidy give an undertaking to keep records and to make them available for inspection. In the case of price regulation Orders, there is a statutory obligation to consult with representatives of the trade before the introduction of any Order, so that, at these consultations, the trade will have the opportunity to inquire in more detail about the documents which they might be required to produce to "duly authorised officers" It seems to me that it is at that level—with the trade organisations and through their own journals—that this could be completely clarified wherever necessary and that when individuals want information they will be able to go to their own trade organisations who will have been consulted throughout.
The introduction here of the word "relevant" implies a subjective judgment, and although there is no indication in the Amendment as to who should decide what is or is not relevant, it could, on the basis of the way in which it is drafted, only be the person who has the documents in his possession, so that the authorised officer would have no means of knowing whether or not all the relevant documents had been produced. If a person feels that he is being asked to produce something that is not relevant he has only to refuse to do so
68
and, if he refuses to produce something which turns out to be necessary and which it transpires should have been produced, the officer can take the means of going to court to obtain production of the document.
I also draw the noble Lord's attention to paragraph 12 of the Schedule which places restrictions on the disclosure of information supplied in the course of the exercising of the powers conferred by the Schedule. Again, there is no danger of any information which becomes available, even as a result of the restricted powers, being abused. In conclusion, I think that I should point out that the powers of entry and inspection are not completely new in the Bill. They are similar to those contained in recent legislation such as the Counter-Inflation Act 1973, the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Trades Description Act 1968. They are necessary, I repeat again, for adequate safeguarding of the considerable sums of public money which are committed to food subsidies. However, they do not go beyond that purpose or seek to introduce any novel incursion into the rights of the individual. Therefore, while appreciating the motives behind the Amendments, I hope that the noble Lord will accept the explanation and will not press the Amendments.
LORD ABERDARE: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for the assurances which she gave me in the course of her speech and for the explanation that these powers are not so far-reaching as I had thought. As she rightly says, they have been included in other legislation, which has been legislation of both Governments, but I think that this is one reason why one should be suspicious of all the powers given to inspectors. I know that the grocers, for instance, now have six different authorities which have access to their shops for inspection purposes, and two of those authorities provide two different inspectors for different aspects of their subject, so that there are eight different authorised people—now to be nine—dodging in and out of grocers' shops inspecting them for one reason or another. However, I am grateful for the explanation which the noble Baroness has given me and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

RENT BILL [H.L.]
5.41 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Extension of protection afforded to furnished tenancies]:
Lord BETHELL Lord BETHELL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, after ("date,") insert ("subject to subsection 1A below—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and I hope it will be for the convenience of the House if I also speak to Amendment No. 2. The purpose of these two Amendments is to reduce the rateable value limit on which protection under the Bill will come into effect for furnished accommodation. Your Lordships will recall that the rateable value limit was changed by the previous Government about a year ago, and that under the present rateable system it now stands at £1,500 for residential units in London and £750 outside London. Any unit above this figure which is unfurnished has no protection. But, there are very few residential units that fall into this category. I believe that there are probably less than 10,000—just a few thousand in the whole country—so it is a question of 99·9 per cent. in one category and 0·1 per cent. in another, and I suggest that it would be more practicable and advantageous to reduce this figure only with regard to furnished accommodation under the legislation that is proposed under this Bill. This would mean that residential units at half the proposed figure—that is, £750 for residential units in London and £375 for units outside London—would not, if they were furnished, have the protection proposed under the Bill.
The reason why I am suggesting this Amendment is indicated by a certain amount of research I have done, which
70
shows that a flat or a house in London with a rateable value of £750 would, on average, command a furnished rent of £75 a week and might, at the top end of the market, command a rent of £125 a week. This information has been given to me on the basis of research conducted by the agents Chestertons who act, among other clients, for the Church Commissioners. I hope your Lordships will agree that there is nothing "Rachmanite" about them and that any information gathered by this most respected firm is likely to be accurate. We are therefore discussing residential units in central London which would have an average weekly rent of £75, around twice the wage for an industrial worker. I ask your Lordships to consider whether it is appropriate that this Bill should provide protection for tenants who will be paying this sort of rent—£75 a week.
By and large, I think we know the purpose of the Rent Bill which has been brought in by the present Administration. The nub of it is contained in the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on Second Reading, when he spoke of young people, particularly young married couples, who were forced because of the shortage of council accommodation to move into the furnished private sector who were unable because of the difficulties in obtaining mortgages to buy their own houses at the moment; who were forced to pay high rents, higher than they could afford, and who had no assurance against eviction. These people, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said:
"… have such incomplete security of tenure that many live in permanent fear of eviction and subsequent homelessness. It is for such people that this Bill is designed to provide help."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th June 1974; col. 240.]
Probably most of your Lordships on both sides of the House sympathise with the plight of people who are in this position, and who face the danger of homelessness if they do not have protection. I do not qaurrel with that Part of the Bill which seeks to help them. But the Bill, as was also indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has been drafted in a rather complicated way and there is a certain feeling that it was done with a lot of haste. Therefore, it may have certain unfortunate side effects which the House should be very careful about and should know about. One of the side

71
effects is that the Bill as at present conceived will have a very serious effect on the present market of furnished flats now available to transients, particularly in London.
I suggest that it is very important that the city of London, which is one of the great world centres, should continue to have a large number of furnished flats and houses available for diplomats, representatives of foreign companies, foreign individuals who come here, people who come from other parts of the country for short terms of a year or two, for people moving jobs and coming to London briefly, perhaps looking for a house or intending to stay only for a year or two for a term of duty to which they have been assigned by the organisation for which they work. It is these people who need the service which is provided by the private sector of furnished accommodation. Without this service one does not quite know what they would do. They may decide not to come to this country if they cannot find accommodation for a year or so. They may decide to go elsewhere. I am thinking now of wealthy individuals from overseas who are looking for a place to live. They may decide to buy accommodation. Embassies and companies may decide that instead of going to the private sector they will buy blocks of accommodation in London.
The result of this would be that pockets of residential accommodation would very soon be in foreign hands and the income from the service would cease, with a consequent loss to the balance-of-payments situation and to the Exchequer. A further consequence might be that people coming to this country for a few months or perhaps a year may be forced to turn to hotels. This might be the only recourse left open to them; they would find themselves forced to take two rooms or a suite in a hotel. The result would be to put up the price of hotel accommodation and to make the hotel situation even more acute than it is now, and in a thoroughly artificial manner. Normally someone coming for as long as six months or a year would not stay in a hotel but would find a furnished flat. If this Bill is passed without something like the Amendment which I have put down, it seems to me extremely unlikely—and I have already declared my personal interest
72
in this matter and have taken some advice—that private landlords who provide this service will continue to do so.
It would be commercial madness, my Lords, for a landlord who is obtaining a rent of, say, £75 a week for a flat (he is not, of course, making a profit of £75 a week because he is providing furniture which cost several thousand pounds; he has to maintain his flat to a high standard of decoration at a cost of several hundred pounds a year; he has to provide services and to replace the furnishings and fittings to keep it to the sort of luxury standard we are talking about) to provide this service if the flat is let to an individual or to sharers who are able to obtain security of tenure and go to a rent officer or a rent tribunal and obtain a fair rent which excludes the element of scarcity. I have taken advice and my advice is that this would probably reduce the weekly rent of such a flat from £75 to between £35 to £40. It would be commercially impossible for a landlord to continue in business in this way.
My case is that above a certain level the ordinary market forces should be able to apply, and it should not be necessary for the Government or the local authority to step in as the guardian of the tenant because the tenant of such accommodation does not need the protection of the authorities in his battle against the landlord. It is sufficient for him to be able to negotiate with the landlord on a free basis and to sign whatever agreement he can achieve. If this Bill goes through without some such amendment I suspect that landlords will wait until they gain possession of the flats which are being let at these high rents and will not relet them, but will wait to see whether the Government reconsider and make some provision for the service they are providing; and then will sell the flat or the house for owner-occupation. It would be crazy of them to take the risk of allowing to move in a tenant who might then gain security and have the rent reduced and remain in the flat for a number of years. I would ask the Government to consider whether they need to provide security for people paying the sort of rents I have been discussing.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his speech on Second Reading suggested that the private landlord was a dying animal,

73
someone who was disappearing off the face of the earth. I dare say there are noble Lords who would think that that was a good thing; but to me—and to many other noble Lords who sympathise with the general purpose of this Bill and who have no wish to see homelessness inflicted on any person in this country—it would seem hopeless to abolish this particular service which is provided for people who do not need protection. It is quite right for the Government to curb landlords who have too much power and who are in a position, at a few months' notice, to evict young married couples from a flat. It is absurd that people who have a furnished flat as their only home should be able to obtain only a few months' protection. Certainly until the housing situation is in a far better state than it is now they need more protection. With the Bill in its present form I would suggest that by abolishing one social evil the Government are having little regard to the harmful side effects of their legislation, one of which will be the disappearance of high quality flats available as short term London residences.
5.58 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lord, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, for his general support of the purpose of this Bill and the lucid way in which he has moved his Amendment. The effect of the Amendment, as he said, would be to provide that no furnished tenancy would become protected if the rateable value of the dwelling-house was more than half the rateable value limits currently fixed for protected tenancies by virtue of Clause 1 of the 1968 Act, as amended by the Counter-Inflation Act of 1973.
The noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has again raised the subject of the effect that this Bill would have on furnished accommodation provided by landlords, such as himself, for the use of foreign diplomats, businessmen and rather wealthy visitors staying temporarily in this country, particularly, of course, in London. He has expressed concern that these visitors will no longer be able to find accommodation suitable for their needs. I am afraid I will have to repeat what I said in Committee when the noble Lord raised this same point on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill? I repeat,
74
I cannot accept that what he is seeking to achieve is either necessary or desirable.
I emphasised in Committee that where furnished accommodation is taken by a Government or by a limited company on behalf of a member of their staff the Government or the company would, under no circumstances, claim Rent Act protection once a contractual tenancy has come to an end. I admit that there is nothing to stop an individual diplomat or businessman to whom a tenancy is granted from claiming protection, but I cannot seriously believe that there will be many foreign visitors who would ever have occasion to do this. I certainly would not agree with any proposal to restrict the scope of the protection we are giving to furnished tenants. The reasons which led us to support the previous Government in extending protection to higher rateable value unfurnished tenancies apply with equal force in the furnished sector now that this will be protected. The noble Lord suggests that expensive furnished accommodation does not provide homes in the sense that we understand that term. But people who are desperate for accommodation are forced and will be forced into the unprotected market and be subject to the high rents and insecurity which we are determined to get rid of.
I should like to remind the noble Lord and the House that his proposal would exempt from protection not only the expensive furnished flat used by the visiting diplomat or businessman, but also that accommodation which has a rateable value between £750 and £1,000 in Greater London. which may well be occupied as homes by long-term residents. I gave most careful consideration to what the noble Lord said in Committee, and considered whether I would be justified either in accepting the Amendment on the Marshalled List, or in seeing whether there was any way around the difficulty. However, I have come to the view, which I ask the House to accept, that we should treat furnished tenancies in the same way as we have treated unfurnished tenancies in the past, and use the same rateable value as the guide. I very much regret to have to say to the noble Lord that we are not in a position to accept his Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I wonder whether I might press the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to reconsider this matter, in spite of the fact that he has said—and, indeed, I am very grateful to him for it—that he has already given it further consideration. It is perfectly true that the Amendment may not be correctly drafted, but its aim is to meet what appears to me and to my noble friend Lord Bethell a rather exceptional case. It seeks to remove from the protection of this Bill only the most expensive flats, the kind of flats occupied by people who may well come to London because it is the capital city and the centre for commerce and business, and not in the way they would go to other places. Because of that they bring in foreign currency, contribute to our balance of payments and no doubt contribute, directly or indirectly, to the economic growth of our society.
The second group of people who will be concerned are those who may come through foreign embassies. I should like to know whether the Government have had discussions with the Foreign Office on this point because, as I understand it, if a flat is let to an individual and not through an embassy, the individual will have security of tenure under Clause 1. Therefore, in a world in which Governments do not always seem to be as stable as we should like, there could be difficulty for a Government in finding accommodation for other officials. In this Amendment we are not talking about tenants who need protection because they are likely to become homeless, or because they are poor and cannot afford to find other accommodation. We are talking about tenants who are able to pay at least £75 a week. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will feel that such people do not need the protection of this Bill, and that he will look at the principle and see whether he can find some way of meeting it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should be the last person to resist the approaches of the noble Baroness on this matter, but I will be honest with the House. I have looked at this matter and have discussed it with my advisers, and I have come to a view which I believe is shared by my colleagues. What I can
76
undertake to do—and I hope this will satisfy the noble Baroness—is to draw her remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, to the attention of my right honourable friend who, I hope, will be taking this Bill through another place later this week. I will also draw his attention to the points that have been made. I am not putting forward any real hope, but I will certainly see that my right honourable friend is made aware of the case which has been put and I will leave it with him for his personal consideration.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the careful consideration which I know he and his advisers have given to my Amendment, and also for what the noble Lord has said this afternoon. There is one point which I should first like to emphasise in regard to the dangerous situation that I outlined in my speech, whereby landlords arc withdrawing their flats from the furnished private market. It has already begun. I have discussed this with certain agents who specialise in this type of accommodation, and I am assured that some landlords are keeping their flats empty because of this Bill and are awaiting events. If some way cannot be found of reaching a solution, such accommodation will vanish from the private furnished market. I can only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to discuss this matter with his colleagues and his right honourable friend and that perhaps some way might be found of keeping the main purpose of the Bill without doing the damage that I believe would be caused if some Amendment similar to my own is not introduced. With that hope, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.7 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 2, after ("above") insert (", subsection (4)(a) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. Tenancies are brought into the protection of the Bill by virtue of the Amendment to Section 2(1)(b) of the Rent Act, contained in subsection (4)(a) of Clause 1, a well as by

77
virtue of subsection (1) of that clause, and it effectively repeals Schedule 4 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Certain tenancies not to be protected]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 29, leave out from ("pursue") to second ("or") in line 32 and insert—("—

(i) a course of full-time instruction at any university, college, school or other educational establishment or institution,

(ii) a course provided or approved under section 2 of the Industrial Training Act 1964 as amended by the Employment and Training Act 1973, or any service contract, apprenticeship or further education associated with any such course, or

(iii) a course of study leading to any of the following—

entry on the roll kept under section 2 of the Midwives Act 1951,
registration under section 7 of the Medical Act 1956,
admission to the register or roll maintained under section I of the Nurses Act 1957,
registration under section 2 of the Dentists Act 1957,
registration under section 2 of the Opticians Act 1958,
registration on any register maintained under section 2 of the Professions Supplementary to Medicines Act 1960,
registration under section 2 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966,
admission under section 1 of the Solicitors Act 1974,
qualification to practice any other specified trade or profession").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and at the same time to speak to Amendment 5. I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the meeting we had and our full discussion on this problem, and also for the thought he has given to this matter. We all recognise there is a real problem for universities and polytechnics, and for students and young people generally as a result of the Bill, and in particular, Clause 1. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments that were fully explained at Committee stage, except to say that we on this side of the House consider that Clause 2, as now drafted, is unsatisfactory.
It may be helpful to explain the main point at issue. Clause 2 is concerned with exemptions from Clause 1, regarding full security of tenure to furnished tenants, and Clause 2(1)(bb) refers to students. Most students living in colleges, halls of residence, or flats owned by the university or polytechnic, will almost certainly be exempted from the provisions of Clause 1 because they are not tenants but live there on licence. The university or college therefore can get back the rooms when a student has completed his course and use the accommodation for another student. Students living in the old-fashioned "digs" with a resident landlady are exempted because under the Bill there is no security of tenure in furnished accommodation where the landlord is resident. As I understand it, this exemption under subsection (1)(bb) was inserted because there are few cases of students who are actually tenants of universities and would, therefore, have protection under Clause 1 but for this exemption.
Therefore, the university might not get back the accommodation it provides when a student has finished his course, and which it needs for future students coming in. This principle is important, because it means that the Government recognise there is a problem for universities and polytechnics if students do not leave their accommodation when they have finished their courses and make room for somebody else. What we on this side of the House are seeking to do by this Amendment is to widen this exemption, because thousands of students now live in furnished flats and will have complete security of tenure under Clause 1. As a result, there will undoubtedly be fewer flats to let, and for future generations of students very little accommodation of the type that students prefer—that is, to be independent of the university and what they regard as a paternalistic attitude. Secondly, in this Amendment we have sought to widen the exemptions to include other young people, including those doing courses under industrial training legislation and those taking medical courses of one kind and another.
Under Amendment No. 4 there is still provision for the Secretary of State to specify other institutions that might be exempted if he so wishes, and the House will realise that we have amended the original Amendment at the bottom of

79
paragraph (iii) to include qualification to practise any other specified trade or profession and therefore to widen it. I have re-read what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said at the Committee stage and, as a result, we have further redrafted this Amendment to meet the criticisms.
Before going into detail, I would make one general point because there is one criticism that the Amendment does not meet. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that if the Government agreed to the Amendment, students would be discriminated against because they would not have the full protection of the Rent Bill. My answer to that is that under this Amendment students will be no worse off than they are now, because they will still have all the protection that Part VI of the Rent Act 1968 affords. It is true that they will not have the added protection of the Rent Bill, but, as I indicated on Second Reading, it is arguable how much better off collectively they will be; those in accommodation will be protected, those seeking accommodation will encounter difficulties in finding it. If this Amendment were agreed to, it could well be argued that students would find themselves the only people able to get furnished accommodation. So it is equally arguable that they would be better off.
I turn now to the Amendment and to the next criticism which was made, which was that it would be very difficult to identify who was a bona fide student. The new subsection (4) in Amendment No. 5 is designed to meet this criticism—that is, it would be difficult to know or prove in court, if necessary, who is or is not a student. The first part of subsection (4) says that in order for a person to prove that he is a student he must be able to show that he has entered a particular course. I understand that the term "entered for a course" is the generic term for starting any of those courses, particularly in the medical profession. Alternatively, he must show that he is engaged in a service contract. However, if the case should come to court, the burden of proof would be on the person who claims that he is not a student and is therefore entitled to security of tenure because the landlord would have let the rooms on the assumption
80
that he was a student and therefore he would leave at the end of his time.
The presumption in law, therefore, is that the person in question is a student. I understand that presumptions like this are not uncommon in law, and are used extensively in the law on food and drugs. If a housewife complains to the public health inspector that there is a mouse in a loaf of bread the presumption is that it is the responsibility of the bakery to show that they did not put the mouse in it, otherwise it would be extraordinarily difficult to prove who did so. The same principle applies in the new subsection (4) and it meets the criticism of determining who is or is not a student. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also said that the Government have not found time to undertake all the necessary consultations, either with the Department of Education and Science or the local authorities.
Leaving aside the whole principle of whether or not it is right to introduce important legislation without undertaking these consultative procedures at all, subsection (5) is meant to help the Government out of this difficulty. It enables the Secretary of State to make regulations either adding to the list of exemptions, or making any other detailed Amendments which may well become necessary after these consultations have taken place, including the wording of subsection (4). It therefore enables the Government to carry out their consultations, but the result must be taken against the background of the first part of the Amendment which would stand as part of the Bill.
In moving this Amendment, I hope therefore that the Government will accept that we are trying to be helpful. This Amendment also has been drafted by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, and I believe it meets not only the anomalies which we all recognise exist in Clause 2, as now drafted, but also the criticisms made of the original Amendment at Committee stage. I hope that as we on this side of the House believe this to be an important Amendment, the Government will feel able to accept it. I beg to move.
6.16 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if we are to have a debate, it may be helpful if I intervene now. The noble Baroness

81
referred to our meeting, and I am grateful that she was willing to attend. I think she will accept—and I certainly give an assurance to the House—that we have a great deal of sympathy with the intention of this Amendment. I could be critical as to its drafting, even though it was done by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. I could also be critical that it raises a new concept in rent legislation, because previously rent legislation dealt with the property and not with the profession or occupation of the occupier. I could do that and take some time on it; but I should like to make a short intervention to state what the Government's intentions are in this matter. This is an area of great complexity and I personally do not think that it is possible to legislate within the short period that we have to deal with this Bill. But perhaps the House will feel that I have gone most of the way to meet the case being made.
The Government are, as I have said, fully alive to the possibility that the supply of private lettings to genuine students may be at risk, and are anxious to secure the continuance of an adequate supply. Consideration of this problem suggests that the best way of tackling this might be by the introduction of a system for the registration of private lettings approved by specified educational institutions for occupation by students, whereby registered lettings should be excluded from full Rent Act protection. Such a system would well be established by regulation. But the regulation-making provisions that would be needed to establish such a system could not possibly be devised in a few weeks. This is a matter that greatly concerns public bodies outside the Government.
The framework of a registration system would have to be the subject of consultation with representatives of educational institutions, with institutions providing courses of vocational training, and with the local authority associations. All would be closely concerned with the implications of such a system, and with such matters as the criteria for approval, the method of approval and registration and provisions for review of registrations and deregistration. Until they have been consulted it would be impossible for the Government to lay before Parliament measures enabling such a system to be set
82
up. The Government therefore intend to launch these consultations as soon as possible after the passing of the Bill, and hope when they are complete to be able to lay before Parliament legislative proposals enabling a registration system to be established.
I hope, therefore, in view of this assurance that the Government will be tackling urgently the need to ensure a supply of private letting for students, and will be doing so by a means designed to exclude the serious weaknesses and dangers of the method which is embodied in the Amendment of the noble Baroness, that she will feel that I have gone pretty well all the way—not entirely, but nearly all the way—to meet her point. We sympathise with the need for some provision to be made in this area. We do not believe that we can include it in this Bill, but it is our intention to enter into immediate consultation with all the institutions and authorities involved, and then to produce the scheme in legislative form.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down may I ask him a question arising out of his speech? At one stage he said that this matter could be dealt with by regulations, but further on he said it would require legislation. Which is correct?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it could be done by regulation, but before one can put down a regulation one needs to have consultation. The advice I have is that if we are going to embark upon a scheme of this kind, and if we are to ensure that it works satisfactorily both for the students and for the general community, including the local authorities who have a particular interest, we should have wide and careful consultation and then introduce the necessary machinery by legislation.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can my noble friend the Leader of the House assure us that the Government will act rapidly in this matter? As he must be aware, the problem becomes serious about September. In almost all higher educatíonal institutions one finds that it is round about September that pressure for accommodation builds up. There are involved the polytechnics, technical colleges, universities. The problem—I can speak for the City of Newcastle—is

83
very grave indeed, although the local authority has done its best in the matter. If the noble Lord could reassure us that the Government are prepared to act quickly in the matter, I personally would be very happy and satisfied.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it is undeniable that some anxiety has been felt by landlords in the university towns that students would stay on after expiry of the residential contract, although, as I explained when we were discussing this matter previously, I felt the fears were considerably exaggerated. By the very nature of a student's life, it comes to an end when he has completed his degree or further degree, as the case may be. It is extremely unlikely that in those instances he is going to take employment in the town where he happens to have been educated with the U.C.C.A. system. Larger and larger numbers of young people are going to universities miles away from their home towns, and in nearly all cases they will seek employment nearer to the place they know from their childhood. I can, however, see the force in what the noble Lord has said in so far as it is necessary to be sure that the landlords will continue to allow their property to be used for these purposes.
The only qualification is that if it is discovered during the process of consultations which the noble Lord has mentioned that there are no cases of students overstaying their welcome after the expiry of a contract, then surely this fact could be drawn to the attention of those who represent the landlords in the discussions and they may feel that the complicated and burdensome system of registration, as no doubt it will be, could be dispensed with and that the protection of students leaving voluntarily at the end is all that would be required. The method that the noble Lord has chosen to deal with the problem is vastly preferable to that advanced by the noble Baroness, in spite of the fact that, as she told us, her Amendment was drafted by no less an expert than the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. One serious defect in the wording of her clause which should be drawn to the attention of your Lordships is that it would apply to all tenants who are students of the kinds described here. Perhaps somebody who is already
84
a tenant of a private landlord takes up a course of education. It may be a mature student—a lady who upon reaching the age of 35 or so decides she can go back to university, her children being old enough to cope on their own. She can suddenly be taken out of the protection provided by the Bill. I am sure that that cannot be what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, intended. So even if the noble Baroness is not completely satisfied with the solution posed by the Government, I hope she will not press her own Amendment to a Division.
6.26 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, may I say that I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. That is one of the consequences of the Amendment; but in reply to the noble Baroness I did not want to spend too long in dealing with the defective part of the Amendment and some of the consequences. But I should like, since this is a matter of interest, to reply to the point my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones has put to me. Clearly I cannot commit a future Parliament, but what I can say is that when the adequate framework for a registration system has been worked out it would be our intention to take the first opportunity of introducing enabling legislation.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I am very satisfied with the assurance my noble friend Lord Shepherd has given. I realise full well the great difficulty of this problem. I have been for 10 years or more treasurer of a university—that was up until last year—and I realise the great difficulties which universities have in obtaining lodgings for their students. They are inhibited to a great degree from building their own accommodation, although in the case of the university with which I have been associated a great deal of accommodation has been built. One has to bear in mind that this is not a problem of static proportions. A certain number of students, having finished their third year, will go out this July; a corresponding number will come in and take over a corresponding number of lodgings. But another factor has to be borne in mind. The numbers of students in many of the universities are growing. A number of lodgings will be vacated this summer and reoccupied by

85
students in September, but that will still leave all the additional students to be catered for.
I suppose that other towns in which universities are situated have had the same problem. We seem to have skimmed the barrel dry of available lodgings in the particular towns concerned. We may make Amendments as the noble Baroness has suggested—and I welcome those Amendments—but at the same time we cannot get a quart out of a pint pot, and if the lodgings are not available, and the potential landladies are not willing to come forward, it is going to be a very difficult problem indeed. I am wondering whether—it is irrelevant to this Bill—local authorities in university towns could be encouraged to build blocks of flats which would be available for students. It may be said: "Why do not the universities themselves do so?" My particular university has built them in considerable numbers. But I feel that something over and above the available lodgings in private houses must be provided for students in these growing universities.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend. It seems clear that the issue between my noble friend and the noble Lord the Leader of the House is a fairly small one. It is whether or not one writes this provision into the Bill now or deals with it by regulation later. I was very struck by what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just said about committing the Government on the undertaking he has just given to the Committee. However, one has to recognise that there is uncertainty about the length of this Parliament. Therefore I feel that no harm can be done by writing this Amendment into the Bill, even if another place amends the precise wording.
6.30 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the careful thought and consideration that he has given to this matter. I appreciate that lie has done everything in his power to try to meet the point that we both agree is not settled by Clause 2 of this Bill. He has made the offer to look into this question as a matter of urgency and to bring in regulations and, later on, legislation to deal with it. However, as both the
86
noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, have said, this is an urgent matter. We have already heard that flats which were available are not going to be available quite soon. Once the Bill is on the Statute Book this will happen even more quickly. I do not know in detail what timetable the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has in mind; but given that he starts the consultations while this Bill is going through another place, he knows, as I do, that most local authorities will be in recess in August. Therefore it will be difficult to take decisions then. Also, many universities will be in the depths of the long vacation and the problem will be upon them in September or October. It is unlikely that they will have come to any conclusions by then, because this will require careful and detailed consultation with all the universities and polytechnics and with all districts as housing authorities—or, at any rate, with all those districts which include within their boundaries universities, polytechnics and other educational establishments of one kind or another.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said that I have exaggerated the problem. I should like to think that that was so. I have tried very hard to find figures. The only other university for which I have been able to find figures is Leeds University where it is estimated that about 4,500 students live in flats of this kind. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says that almost all of them will leave at the end of three years. I wonder whether that is so. I doubt very much whether that is so in London, since many students find employment in London; and I doubt whether that is so in Birmingham, since again many students find employment in Birmingham. Also I doubt whether that is so in the case of polytechnics, where students could be doing sandwich courses, and in the case of medical students who would stay where they are. In these particular cases it is not an exaggeration to say that a large proportion, given security, could well stay on for much longer. Indeed, T believe that the Government think that is so, otherwise they would not have put Clause 2(1)(bb) into this Bill; they know that these educational establishments need a constant re-use of accommodation in order to find places for the constant inflow of students. Furthermore, it leaves out all

87
the other students whom my Amendment covers. We need to look much further than simply at the universities and the polytechnics. There are a great many other young people who will need accommodation.
I hope I have said enough to show that I have considered this matter very carefully indeed. Having listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, I feel that I cannot accept it and that I must press my Amendment.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned Leeds and 4,500 places, and I was not quite sure what she meant by that. Is she aware that the local authority in Leeds proposes to make available to students fiats in the big Quarry Hill complex which will be closed for normal housing?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I had heard that the local authority was going to make some flats available and I was glad to hear it. I had my figures from a responsible person at the university. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon, was not here at Committee stage, she may not have appreciated which group of students we are talking about. We are not talking about those students who are living in halls of residence or in colleges. We are talking about students who choose to live in private flats as tenants. That was the number which I was given of students who were thought to be living in private flats in Leeds. This figure could include other educational institutions besides the university. However, in round figures that was the information which I was given.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, I am not disagreeing with the figures which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has given. I am only saying that there will be this extra accommodation, since the big Quarry Hill complex will no longer be used for local authority family housing. Many of the flats there will be made available for students who would normally be in private accommodation.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Young, sits down, can she say whether she has taken into consideration the point which I made about tenants who will be protected at the time the Bill goes through but who, by subsequently taking a course of education,
88
will be removed from protection by her Amendment? Does the noble Baroness think that this is the way to encourage mature students to go back to university?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may have identified one hard case. However, I should not like to agree with him that all mature students will be in that particular position. After all, a great many mature students are married women who decide to take a further degree either at the Open University or somewhere else. Therefore they will be living in their own homes and will not necessarily be tenants of furnished accommodation. The only people who would be affected by the particular case which the noble Lord gives are those mature students who happen still to be in furnished accommodation.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness not agree that if she had a son who was working but who, at the age of 25, decided to take a course and become a student, he would lose all the protection that he previously had? That would be a consequence of the Amendment of the noble Baroness.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies again, would she not accept that it is not just a question of furnished tenancies to which her Amendment refers but any tenancy granted to any student?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am particularly concerned with furnished tenancies because I think that it is exceedingly unlikely that many students will be in unfurnished accommodation. The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, may know of students who are rich enough to furnish an unfurnished fiat. However, most of the students whom I know are living on grants in furnished accommodation and certainly could not equip themselves in unfurnished accommodation. They are living in simple accommodation. However, I accept that some students might be living in unfurnished accommodation. If the Amendment extended relief to unfurnished accommodation I would regard this as no bad thing—as, indeed, I welcomed at Second Reading the extension by the Government in this Bill of freedom to unfurnished accommodation where the property has a resident landlord.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have been guilty of a number of offences because I have been seeking to persuade the House not to do something which the noble Baroness has in mind and which I think would be wrong. However, as Leader of the House I think that I ought to try to bring myself to order in that Members of your Lordships' House should speak once only at Report stage. I understand that Ministers are permitted
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.48 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, leave out from ("following") to ("and") in line 41 and insert—("subsections:—
(4) For the purposes of paragraph (bb) of subsection (1) above, any person who has had his name entered for a course of further education, or who has engaged in a service contract
to speak, with the leave of the House, and that the mover of the Amendment can move it and wind up. My Lords, I bring myself to order and suggest that everybody follows suit.
6.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 57; Not-Contents, 37.
or apprenticeship, as referred to in that paragraph shall be presumed to be pursuing or intending to pursue that course, service, contract, apprenticeship or further education unless the contrary is proved.
(5) The Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make regulations modifying amending and adapting the provisions of this Act and of the Rent Act 1968 as may be necessary to give effect to paragraph (bb) of subsection (1) above; in that paragraph "specified" means specified by such regulations;").—(Baroness Young.)

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gisborough, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Amory, V.

Gowrie, E.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn E. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Hailes, L.

St. Helens, L.

Belstead, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Sandys, L.

Bethell, L.

Hawke, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cathcart, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sharpies, B.

Colville of Culross, L.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

Somers, L.

Cowley, E.

Killearn, L.

Strange, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Swinton, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Tenby, V.

Derwent, L.

Luke, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Vivian, L.

Elles, B.

Mersey, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Elton, L.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Yarborough, E.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Gainford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Peddie, L.

Avebury, L.

Gifford, L.

Raglan, L.

Bacon, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

St. Davids, V.

Birk, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shannon, E.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Henderson, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Castle, L.

Jacques, L.

Slater, L.

Crook, L.

Leatherland, L.

Snow, L.

Darwen, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Feather, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Recovery of possession of holiday accommodation let on out of season tenancies]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, leave out from beginning of line 15 to ("the") in line 17 and insert—
"In Part II of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968 (Cases in which court must order possession of dwelling-house subject to regulated tenancy)—

(a) in the first line of Case 10 after the word "occupied" there shall be inserted the words "or intended on his retirement to occupy", and

(b)".

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6. A similar Amendment to this—moved by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull—was discussed at the Committee stage of the Bill. We all agreed—and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has much sympathy—with the case of a person who buys his house for retirement. This might apply to a Minister of Religion, a schoolmaster, or someone living in tied accommodation who buys a house for retirement, lets it until he is ready to retire and then expects the tenants to leave so that he can go to live in it himself. Or there is the alternative case of, perhaps a man who lives in London but who has always wished to retire to the Yorkshire Dales; he buys a cottage which he then lets and wishes to have once he retires from his business.
On reading what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said during the Committee stage, as I understand it, the difficulty was that if he had accepted the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull he considered that it might well open the flood gates to many people who would try to get round the provisions of the Rent Bill by buying houses for their retirement which were not intended for that purpose. Therefore, we have looked at the Amendment again and have redrafted it in order to meet this criticism. In the present Amendment the burden of proof will be on the person to show that he bought his house for retirement. Given that he can show this, under Schedule 3 to the 1968 Act he would fall within those cases in which the court must order possession rather than leave the position as it stands (as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, described it) for him to argue his case
92
under Case 8, which is a case in which the court may order possession. The difficulty now will be that the court will consider the case with a background of the security of tenure which the Rent Bill affords. I do not think it is good enough to leave the position like this. On this side of the House we are concerned only with bona fide cases of people who, either because of the nature of their work, or because they have always wished to retire to some part of the country, have bought a house in which they wish to live themselves. Therefore, I hope that the Government will feel able to accept this Amendment; that it does meet the criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised on Committee, and that he will feel that these deserving people ought to have the assurance that when they wish to retire they will be able to occupy their own house without any difficulty at all. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have sympathy with this Amendment, as I did with the last one. But in view of the giants opposite who flexed their muscles on the previous Amendment, I wonder whether I should be equally conciliatory to this Amendment. Perhaps I was remiss on the last Amendment in that I did not seek to expose its weaknesses and dangers. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned one of these. I did it deliberately, because I was hoping that one could reduce the time spent on Report stage, and hoping also to put forward what I thought was the right approach for dealing with a very complex matter. But in the light of the fact that the House clearly wants full explanations on Amendments moved, I fear I may have to speak at some length on this Amendment.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, this Amendment is a revision of one the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, intended to move, but which the noble Baroness moved in his absence. After an intervention on my part, the noble Baroness withdrew the Amendment. Case 10 of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act is the Case that enables an owner-occupier to regain possession of a dwelling he formerly occupied as his residence, and then let. It is one of the "absolute possession" cases; that is, a case in which a court, if satisfied that certain

93
conditions exist, must make an order for possession. One of these conditions, common to all absolute possession cases, is that the tenant must be given notice not later than the start of the tenancy that the landlord reserves the right to regain possession under the Case. The other conditions are that the landlord formerly occupied the dwelling as his residence; that he has never let the dwelling since December 8, 1965, on a protected tenancy not subject to Case 10; that the dwelling is needed for his occupation, or for a member of his family who lived there with him when he lived there before.
This Amendment is designed to extend Case 10 to cover the situation in which the landlord has never lived in the dwelling, but intends to do so on retirement. It is defective for its purpose. For instance, to refer to the first line of Case 10, to the intended retirement home which the landlord has never occupied, if I may say so makes a nonsense of the final Case 10 condition which refers to members of the landlord's family who lived there with him. More seriously, it would leave the case as open as would the previous Amendment to allowing evasions of the Act.
My Lords, intentions are easily expressed, and "retirement" is an undefined term. It should also be remembered that the person who has let the dwelling which he wishes to occupy when he does retire, already has a right to seek possession under Case 8 of Schedule 3, as has any landlord who needs for his own occupation or that of the owner's relatives, the dwelling he has let. This Case certainly does not give an absolute right of possession, which will be granted only if the court considers it reasonable and is satisfied that making the order will not cause the tenant more hardship than not making it would cause the landlord. None the less, it gives the landlord a good prospect of repossessing the dwelling in which he hopes to live.
During the Committee stage of the Bill, I was asked whether any difficulties had been drawn to the attention of the Department. No such cases have been. I admit that this proves nothing in itself, but it may be accepted, perhaps, that in the circumstances we have no grounds to suppose that people who in good faith let unfurnished dwellings in which they
94
hope to live on retirement, have had difficulty in repossessing those dwellings when needed. Nevertheless, the Government recognise that the lack of certainty that a retirement home will be available when needed can be distressing.
The problem is one of giving an absolute right of repossession of the true retirement home without at the same time opening a door for potential evaders of the Act who would seek to use such a right to deny tenancies in dwellings they themselves do not really mean to occupy as their own ultimate home. The Government intend to examine this problem in the hope of finding some way of reconciling the need of a landlord for assurance that he will be able to live in his true retirement home, with the tenant's need for security, in any dwelling that will not be genuinely so needed. These requirements are not easy to reconcile. I will be frank with the noble Baroness. I have spent a considerable time in seeking a way round this. We will proceed with our inquiries. Although I cannot undertake that there is an immediate solution which we can incorporate in this Bill, despite what happened on my earlier offer to help I can say I will continue in my endeavour to find a way of meeting this point, with which we have a good deal of sympathy, between now and consideration in the Commons.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lady Young, and to apologise to the House for not having been present during Committee stage. I am very grateful to the Leader of the House for the sympathetic answer which he has given, and for recognising that there is a case for consideration arising specifically from this Bill. We all know the kind of case we have in mind: the case of those serving in the Foreign Office, or those who are abroad for one reason or another in the service of their country. We know cases of teachers—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thought these individuals were dealt with in Committee stage. These people are in fact covered in the Bill. It seems to me that in this Amendment we are considering those who have retirement homes.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I must apologise if I misread my brief.

95
I wish to support my noble friend Lady Young in whatever action she wishes to take in view of what has been said by the Leader of the House.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I have listened with great care to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, and I should like to say immediately how much I appreciate the offer to look at this matter before the Bill goes to another place. The difficulty that I find myself in is that I accept that the drafting may not be perfect. I drafted it or, more accurately, my noble friend Lord Colville drafted it, with the intention of meeting the point of criticism that people would seek to evade the provisions of the Bill by using this Amendment. I thought we had met this difficulty, and I should like to give an assurance that we are not seeking a loophole in this Bill, but are simply trying to put right what I think is a very real fear among a number of people. I am bound to say that I am surprised that the term "retirement" is not defined in law. Not being a lawyer, I am sure that this advice is right, but I should have thought that in all the legislation governing pensions and social security it would have been defined.
The difficulty about the proposition that we should leave this to the Case 8 situation is that there can be no guarantee that a person would get his house back, because Case 8 of Schedule 3 covers cases in which the court may order possession and the court will clearly consider the situation in the light of the background of this Bill. Therefore, the situation will have been altered from what it was. As I think the noble Lord said, even if there are no cases on record where the owner has been dissatisfied, that does not prove that there will not be cases in the future or, indeed, that there are no dissatisfied people; it merely means that they have not complained. I feel that I am speaking on behalf of a number of people now coming up to retirement age who, undoubtedly, have bought houses to which they expect to retire and into which they expect to be able to move when they reach the age of 65. I should have thought that if somebody bought a house at the age of, say, 25 and said, "I am buying it for retirement", the court would realise that that was an absurd situation. But if
96
somebody buys one at the age of 55 or 60 it is a very different proposition, and I should therefore have thought that the wording of this Amendment would allow for the evasions.
Because I have had a great many representations made to me on this point, I feel that, despite all the assurances, I cannot withdraw the Amendment. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will realise that I am very grateful for his offer, and that he will accept that he can put this matter right in another place and thus give to a great many people, who are at present very worried, this security which I think is rightly theirs.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.3 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 5, leave out from ("period") to end of line 8 and insert—
"(i) of less than 8 months, if it is determinable at the option of the landlord (other than in the event of an irritancy being incurred) before the expiration of 8 months from the commencement of the period of the tenancy, and
(ii) of 8 months or more, if it confers on the tenant an option for renewal of the tenancy for a period which, together with the original period, amounts to 8 months or more, and it is not determinable as mentioned in paragraph (i) above.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. The Amendment defines what is meant by the expression "a tenancy for a specified period not exceeding 8 months" in Case 11A which is inserted into Schedule 3 to the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 by Clause 3(2). This case applies to Scotland only. The purpose of Case 11A is to enable a landlord to recover possession of a holiday dwelling house where he has let it for a specified period not exceeding eight months on an out of season let. At present, Case 11A provides what should be treated as being a tenancy for a specified period for the purpose of this case, but it is considered that in Scotland the difficulty which may arise is not as to what is meant by "a tenancy for a specified period", but as to what is meant by, "a tenancy for a specified period not exceeding 8 months". The Amendment proposes to define what is meant by, "a tenancy not exceeding 8 months" in terms similar to the way in which, "a

97
lease for a period less than 7 years" is defined in Section 9(1) of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1966. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Transitional provisions affecting furnished lettings which become furnished tenancies]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8, and with your Lordships' permission will speak to Amendment No. 9. These are drafting Amendments to the provisions about the determination of a suspended notice to quit relating to a furnished tenancy which becomes protected on the commencement date by virtue of Clause 1 of the Bill. The order of the paragraphs is changed and the existing paragraph (d) is re-written in different terms in the interests of clarity. There is no change of substance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 1, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—

("(d) that period has not expired before the commencement date, and

(e) on the commencement date the furnished letting becomes a protected furnished

tenancy by virtue of section 1 above.").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Furnished lettings: amendments relating to control and registration of rents]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10 and will also speak to No. 11. Both of these are drafting Amendments. Part VI of the Rent Act re-enacts the Furnished Houses (Rent Control) Act 1946 and uses the expressions "lessor" and "lessee". The Rent Act is drafted in terms of "landlord" and "tenant". This Amendment to the new Section 74(2A) of the Rent Act brings the terminology into line with that used in the rest of Part VI. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out ("landlord or a superior landlord") and insert ("lessor or any person having any title superior to that of the lessor").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 36, leave out ("landlord") and insert ("lessor").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Short title, citation, application, commencement and extent]:
7.8 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 11A:
Page 10, line 16, leave out from ("operation") to ("the") in line 17 and insert ("on the day after").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, out of the great number of Amendments which my noble friend Lord Melchett and I moved on Committee, this is the only one we have retained for consideration this afternoon. The object of the Amendment is very clear. The Bill at present will come into force one month after the day on which it is passed. My Amendment is designed to reduce that period of one month to one day. So far as the other Amendments which my noble friend and I moved on Committee are concerned how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Shepherd for the very serious attention he gave to them. In some cases the Amendments to be moved this evening take those Amendments into account. In other cases certain letters have been written and assurances given, and I am very happy to say that, although not entirely content, I certainly do not want to press the points further. However, on this Amendment, the date of coming into force of the Act, I am bound to say that on reading what my noble friend had to say on Committee I find myself most dissatisfied by the reasoning which he gave for not bringing this Bill into force immediately after it is passed.
One of the reasons he gave was that there had in any case been enough time to protect tenants who were given notice to quit on the coming into power of this Government. He said if all the procedures had been gone through and the

99
tenant had applied to the rent tribunal, there would not be enough time for the landlord to obtain possession before the Bill came into law. That may be true of people given notice to quit who have the knowledge to go to the rent tribunal, but of course it is not true at all of tenants on fixed term tenancies.
As my noble friend knows, a convenient device has been found in the past by many landlords to avoid being subjected to the security of tenure provisions of the rent tribunal by granting fixed term tenancies to their tenants. To give one such example of a trend that I believe is quite widespread at the moment, I am given to understand that a certain gentleman called Lord Elliot—he is not a Member of your Lordships' House but one day may be a Member of your Lordships' House—has a number of properties in London let on fixed term tenancies, some of which have come to an end in recent weeks. He is going straight to the county court for possession on the grounds that it is necessary to get early possession to avoid being caught by the Rent Bill. I have written to Lord Elliot saying that I had this information. I have received no comment, or denial that that indeed is his intention. What is certainly happening during this month is that a number of landlords with tenants on fixed terms are going to the county court for possession. They will get it some time during July, and if there is a month's delay thereafter they will be able to execute those orders for possession during August, before the Bill can possibly become law.
My noble friend at Committee stage said that it was customary for a period of delay to be given so that people should get to know the law before it comes into force. I would suggest that that is not the custom, nor indeed is it desirable, with a Bill such as this. The precedent is the Protection from Eviction Act, 1964. Then, as now, tenants were losing their homes, or being threatened with eviction from their homes, because of the coming to power of a Labour Government pledged to give security. Then, as now, there was a need to act quickly; then, as now, there was a point to be made that landlords might not know about the law, and therefore would act unlawfully without being aware of the fact. Parliament then thought it right to bring that Act
100
into force directly after it was passed, and they did so, rightly, because there was a social evil to be prevented. The evil may be less great now, but it is certainly there.
Undoubtedly, landlords are becoming more and more familiar with the provisions of this Bill as it passes through Parliament and as it begins to get more and more widely known. That is the reason why it is necessary to have the shortest possible delay before it comes into law. The Government have recognised this by saying all along, and with my full agreement, that we need to get this Bill through quickly. I would wish to see it come into law quickly, and I would urge my noble friend to look again at the reasons why there should he a month's delay. I hope that he can tell me that those reasons, in the context of this Bill, are really not strong enough, and that an earlier date can be arrived at. I beg to move.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I should like to rise briefly to support everything that my noble friend Lord Gifford has said, both in regard to the careful consideration that my noble friend has given to all the Amendments we spoke to at Committee stage and in urging this Amendment on my noble friend. I think that it is fair to say we have all agreed that the Bill still contains some omissions, even loopholes, and we are all agreed that, for reasons of speed and necessity, the Bill must become law very quickly. I certainly accept that argument. Inevitably, it follows from that that the Bill must come into effect quickly as well. As my noble friend Lord Gifford has said, there are already cases coming up where landlords are rushing to get possession, in one way or another, to evade the provisions of the Bill. It would be a tragedy if people were evicted from their homes merely to give my noble friend's advisers time to prepare documentation to explain the Bill so that people can understand it. I hope that he will feel able to accept the Amendment moved by my noble friend.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is to reply to this Amendment as he did at Committee stage, but I felt that he then advanced important arguments why this Amendment should not be accepted. Among his arguments, I

101
think that the most important was the need for consultation with local authorities, because clearly this will affect them. Even if it is not considered to be necessary, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, gave an undertaking, which I think was accepted by all parts of the Committee, that in this very complicated piece of legislation there should be some kind of simple explanatory memorandum, so that many individuals who will be affected will understand how the Bill is to affect them.
I am bound to say that I was slightly shocked by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, saying that we must rush the Bill through because so many people would understand it that they would do something about it. It may well be that some unscrupulous people will do just that; it certainly will not be for want of warning on this side of the House, because we have consistently said that this is what will happen, that fewer people will let furnished accommodation. Be that as it may, a great many other people, who are not unscrupulous landlords but are performing a useful service in letting furnished accommodation, are entitled to understand the Bill and to have a reasonable explanation of it; quite apart from them, so are local authorities. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will speak in the same terms as he did at Committee stage.
7.17 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, when I hear from the noble Baroness that we need time for consultation, time to consult the various local authorities, when that was the bone, and meat of my argument on an earlier Amendment of considerable importance which the noble Baroness herself rejected, supported by her colleagues (some of whom came from distant parts of the House without having heard the argument), I must say I find it rather hard to accept, and equally if I may say so to my noble friend, his suggestion that my arguments on Committee were not good enough. I recognise that there ought to be a proper period of time before a Bill becomes an Act in order that those who are affected should be aware of its implications. That was, if my noble friend will remember, the basis on which I objected to his Amendment and which I must also do this evening.
102
However, I recognise that, in regard to those who are affected by Schedule 3, there is a considerable case for the Bill being implemented sooner. However, I have been advised that to amend Schedule 3 would be a mammoth undertaking, and I know that Parliamentary counsel are now already well occupied not only on this Bill but on the Housing Bill and other legislation concerned with the Department of the Environment. I am, therefore, very loth, while recognising the case that has been made particularly as it affects Schedule 3, to impose further labours on them.
I have considered how best I could meet the two problems. I would, therefore, ask my noble friend whether he would be willing to withdraw his Amendment, on the proposition that, if lie does, I would immediately, by manuscript Amendment, move an Amendment which would leave out the words "one month" and insert "two weeks". This would mean that there would be a period—I admit somewhat short—between the enactment of the legislation and the bringing into effect of parts of it. I do this because I have already heard through the grapevine that the noble Lord intends to press this Amendment. I hope he has not taken it from the noble Baroness—but I fear that if he wants to press it to a Division, looking around your Lordships' House and realising that the work of the noble Lords opposite has been well done and many have all gone home, we would be without a quorum, in which case I would not be able to get my Bill this afternoon when it is much needed. Therefore, I say to my noble friend that were he willing to withdraw his Amendment I will then move an Amendment to leave out the words "one month" and insert "two weeks".
LORD GIFFORD: I am sure that my noble friend is not asserting that proposition purely because he fears the Division but because I think that he recognises that there is a substantial point, in that it would be wrong for Parliament to have passed a Bill which gives protection to people in their homes if during the next month those against whom the legislation is aimed can rush to the bailiffs, take out warrants and get possession Orders which could not be suspended

103
under Schedule 3 until the commencement date has passed. Therefore, there is a need for a shorter period. Having said that, I recognise that I have made progress in just over two weeks and I will not press the matter further. I am grateful to my noble friend for having made that concession. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move a further manuscript Amendment to Clause 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 17, leave out ("one month") and insert ("two weeks").—(Lord Shepherd.)
BARONESS YOUNG: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, would hardly expect me to allow this Amendment to pass without comment particularly when we have already discussed it in Committee and on the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. It is a convenient way of settling a difference. I think it is the usual trade union management way of splitting the difference and coming out with "half-way". Perhaps it is all part of the social compact with Back-Bench Members of the Government to make everything go smoothly. I think there is a serious point here. All of us who are knowledgeable about housing recognise the hard cases and recognise, as I have done consistently through this Bill, that many people who are in accommodation at present will be helped by having, security of tenure. But there will be injustice to everybody else, particularly those smaller landlords who will find this an exceedingly complicated Bill to under stand. It is easy for the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, if I may say so, to speak so fluently about the Bill. He is, after all, a barrister, but to those of us who have no legal training it is difficult to understand. I believe that many land lords should not do anything now with out having their solicitor by their side. They probably have never thought of employing a solicitor before. Maybe they should have done, but they have not and no doubt the Bill, whatever else it may or may not do, will be very good for the legal profession.
104
I believe the whole House accepted that there was a need for a simplified explanation. I have found myself deluged by inquiries about the Bill, some of which I have been able to answer and about some of which I have been only too glad to find out from some of the experts of the Department of the Environment, for it is dangerous to give a quick answer when one is not sure. For all these reasons I think it is not unreasonable to leave the length of time between the passing of the legislation, the Royal Assent and its coming into force, as originally drafted in the Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: I respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in a serious way, because she has dealt in Committee with the question of publicity. I had intended to speak at some length on this matter on Third Reading. The noble Baroness will remember I undertook to do that. This is not a trade union arrangement. I have gone half-way, if I may say so, with my noble friend as I have sought to go half-way with the noble Baroness. By withdrawing his Amendment my noble friend has accepted my overture with the noble Baroness. It is difficult to strike a balance. There is need for quick implementation of the Bill. Equally, as the noble Baroness has said, there is need for a reasonable pause before the enactment takes landlords in line. In the rent legislation, as the noble Baroness will remember, is the 1964 Act which came into force immediately after the Royal Assent. Therefore with this Bill and also with the case which I put in Committee. I sought to go half way to meet the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. I hope the House will now accept the Amendment.
On Question, manuscript Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments of Rent Act]:
7.27 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 35, at end insert ("having regard to the provisions of that Part.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment relates to Case 9, Schedule 3 of the Rent Act as amended by paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill. Under Case 9

105
a landlord can apply for a possession order on the ground that his tenant has overcharged a protected or a statutory sub-tenant. Paragraph 4 extends this case to allow a landlord to apply on the ground that his tenant has overcharged a Part VI sub-tenant. But as the Bill is drafted the case could apply if, for example, the tenant charged the subtenant a higher rent than the maximum rent recoverable under the current rent freeze. The Amendment ensures that he may only apply where the tenant has charged the sub-tenant more than the rent registered under Part VI of the Act or Part VII of the Scottish Act. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD: Amendment No. 13 is one of the more pleasant Amendments, a drafting Amendment to remove unnecessary words. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 16, leave out ("protected furnished").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.29 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 12, line 36, leave out paragraph 9.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14 and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 15. This is a technical Amendment. Section 45 of the 1968 Act provides that a rent officer may issue a certificate of fair rent for a dwelling-house before it is let on a regulated tenancy. Subsection (2) sets out the assumptions to be made about the terms of a future tenancy, unless these are specified in the application. The rent officer must assume that the tenant will be liable for internal decorative repair and that no services or furniture would be provided under the tenancy. It is not necessary to delete the reference to the furniture, as if furniture is to be provided this will be specified as a term of the tenancy in the application for the certificate. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 8, leave out paragraph 19.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 14, line 35, leave out ("words "this Act "") and insert ("word" 1965" there shall be inserted the word and" and after the word "1972"").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Hughes, I beg to move this Amendment which is mainly to allow local authorities to publicise the rights under the Bill, which power is presently available under Section 125(1) of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Tenancies granted by resident landlords]:
7.32 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 15, line 25, leave out from ("(1)") to second ("which") in line 26 and insert ("Subject to subsection (5) below, a tenancy of a dwelling-house").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 17, which is a paving Amendment to a substantive Amendment, No. 22; and with permission, I should also like to speak to Amendment 19, which is a paving Amendment but which is of substance, and to Amendments 20 and 21, which are again paving Amendments to Amendment No. 22.
Amendment No. 19 makes it clear that a landlord cannot claim that the exemption applies to a tenancy which was granted at a time when there was not a resident landlord in the building. The redrafting of this subsection was necessary to ensure that the exemption applies only to a tenancy granted by a resident landlord. The new subsection (2)—that is, Amendment No. 22—imposes the continuing residence obligation on the landlord. Thus the exemption applies only if the landlord was living in the building when the tenancy was created, and only so long as he continues to live there.
My Lords, with permission I would now come to Amendment No. 22, which

107
is of substance, and I would ask forgiveness if I speak at some length because this is an extensive redraft of Schedule 2. It introduces four subsections to replace and correct the provisions in the existing subsections (2) and (3), and to make special provisions for certain circumstances in which the resident landlord does not fulfil the residence requirement set out in subsection (1).
For the purposes of the exemption it is necessary to make quite clear what the residence requirement on the landlord is. Subsection (7) below, introduced by the Amendment to page 16, line 21, applies the same test to the landlord as is applied to a statutory tenant by Section 3(2) of the Rent Act. But it is necessary to make additional provision to cover those circumstances which can apply to a landlord but which cannot apply to a Section 3(2) statutory tenant, and so are not covered by the application of Section 3(2). A statutory tenant has no interest in land, but a landlord usually has, unless he himself is a statutory tenant; and so there must be arrangements to cover those cases in which the interest in land changes hands and, for one reason or another, there is a period when the person who owns the interest is not resident. But at the same time it is necessary to ensure that these provisions cannot be abused by landlords who attempt to evade the Acts. The Amendment therefore puts a limit on the length of time for which a tenancy remains in Part VI despite the fact that the landlord is not in residence.
Subsection (2) deals with the cases of temporary gaps in residence which occur on the transfer of the landlord's interest in the property, either on purchase or death. It provides that these gaps shall be disregarded when considering whether the residence requirement is fulfilled. The first case to be dealt with is where a resident landlord sells his home to another person who intends to be a resident landlord. It is clearly necessary to provide for this case. If no provision is made, a resident landlord who wants to sell his home would evict his tenants before he moves in order to avoid creating a protected tenancy, which might make it difficult to sell the property. Subsection (2)(a) makes it possible for an intending resident landlord to preserve
108
the exemption if, within 14 days of the conveyancing date, he serves written notice on the tenant that he intends to take up residence in the building. This ensures that the tenant is not left in any doubt about his tenancy. But quite clearly there must be some limit to the time before the landlord takes up residence, or this provision could be abused. Subsection 2(b) states that the exemption will apply for only six months, or until the property passes to someone who does not intend to live there, or until the residence qualification in subsection (1)(c) is satisfied, whichever is the earlier. The period of six months is allowed to enable a landlord who, for example, wants building works done before he moves into his new home, or who buys a little in advance of his actual need to move in, to preserve the exemption. However, if he sells within that period to someone else who does not intend to be a resident landlord, the exemption dies on the date on which the property becomes vested in the absentee landlord, and the tenancy becomes protected.
The second case, which is dealt with in subsection 2(c), concerns the situation which arises when a resident landlord dies and the property is temporarily vested in personal representatives, trustees or the probate judge while the estate is settled. None of these is likely to be resident in the building, but the eventual beneficiary may well be, or intend to be. Subsection 2(c) therefore allows 12 months for the settling of the estate, during which the exemption will still apply. If, on the settling of the estate, or at the end of 12 months, the landlord's interest is not vested in a person who is resident, the tenancy becomes protected.
During these periods of deemed residence the tenant may well be in some doubt about his position. The provisions in the Housing Bill which give tenants the right to know the identity of their landlord on application will be of some assistance. But in order to ensure that no tenant is deprived of his home while there is not in fact a resident landlord on the premises, subsection (4) provides that the county court shall not make an order for possession on the basis that the tenancy is unprotected. Instead, the court will be able to make an order during such a period only if one of the

109
grounds for possession of a protected or statutory tenancy applies.
Subsection (3) covers the situation in which the legal interest is never vested in the person who to all intents and is the resident landlord. This is the where the property is vested in on a trust for sale, or in trust for beneficiary who fulfils the residence requirement. In these circumstances they are the resident landlord for the purposes of the exemption.
Subsection (5) contains a corrected and amended version of the present subsections (2) and (3) of Section 5A. It provides that the resident landlord exemption shall not apply in either of the following cases. The first case is where the tenancy in question is granted to a person who was previously a protected tenant of dwelling-house in the same building. This not only corrects the previously erroneous subsection (3) but also meets the substantial Amendment to this subsection put down by my noble friend Lord Gifford at Committee stage. The original version related only to a tenancy which was of the same dwelling house, or which included part of the same dwelling house, as the previous tenancy. My noble friend proposed that this should be amended to relate to tenancy of any dwelling-house in the same building, and the Government undertook to consider the point. I have decided that my noble friend Lord Gifford has identified a loophole by which tenants could be deprived of protection by a landlord, and that this loophole should be closed by incorporating my noble friend's Amendment.
The second case in which the resident landlord exemption will not apply is where the tenancy in question is a fixed-term contract and immediately before the tenancy was granted the tenant had an earlier tenancy contract of a dwelling house in the same building. This is an amendment of the existing subsection (2) which adopts the principle proposed by my noble friend on the first case and adopted by the Government in subsection (5)(a). It prevents a landlord from depriving a tenant of the protection he would otherwise have by granting him a fixed term tenancy of another dwelling house in the same building.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, the Amendment which my noble friend has
110
moved has needed a good deal of time to explain because it is so long. But it is a great improvement on the Bill as previously drafted. I certainly acknowledge that and I am grateful for the references which he has made to Amendments which I moved on Committee stage. Two or three of them are taken care of here. The only point I want to ask about is the reference in the new subsection (5) to fixed-term tenancies. In the Bill as originally drafted, the intention was that, where fixed-term tenancies under two years in length were granted, they should be within the resident landlord exemption—the effect, of course, being that the tenant could not go to the rent tribunal when the tenancy came to an end. Tenancies over two years would not be within that exemption. However, that two-year limit does not reappear in the amended version to which my noble friend has just spoken. As I understand it, the effect will he that, whenever a resident landlord grants a tenancy for any term of years—be it for one, two, three, five or more years—when that tenancy comes to an end, the tenant will thereupon be in danger of almost immediate deprivation of his house. So that a family which may have lived for five or ten years in a house where the landlord is a resident landlord will find upon the ending of that period, if the tenancy is not renewed and made a periodic one and the landlord goes to the court, that they have no possibility of any security or any protection—even that afforded by the rent tribunal.
My noble friend, in explaining that fixed-term tenancies were for this purpose to be permitted was, I thought, thinking about short fixed terms where the tenant—maybe for six months or for one or two years—would go into residence knowing that he might have only a comparatively short period of stay in the house, though if there were an extension he would have rent tribunal rights. I am rather disturbed that although tenants who receive fixed term tenancies have the security of that fixed term, they do not even have the right to go to the rent tribunal to get an extension of security of tenure when that fixed term comes to an end. That appears to be a weakness in the clause as it is now drafted. I have a Manuscript Amendment down, but I do not propose to move it because I recognise that it does not meet the problem. But I ask my noble friend if

111
he cannot answer immediately, to consider what I have said, so that the original limit of two years for these fixed term tenancies might be reinstated in another place.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, I will first undertake to consider very carefully what he has said. But as he has drawn attention to the fact that we have omitted the significant words, "two years", it is perhaps right for the sake of those who may be looking at the Bill in another place, or those who may be interested in the legislation, for me to give the reason why we have deleted them. On reflection, I felt that this limitation would be too arbitrary and should therefore be omitted from the Bill. In making this decision I had in mind the situation, which I had previously mentioned, of the resident landlord who knows that he will have spare accommodation for a fixed period, but that at the end of that time he will need it back; for example, to provide accommodation for a child who may be returning home after a certain period away. There is no reason to assume that in all such cases the time during which the landlord can let will be two years or less—it might be two and a half or three years. By deleting the words, "two years" we would give a much greater flexibility to the clause. I think that this is an advantage to possible tenants, because we do not wish to put any unnecessary burdens upon landlords which may help to dry up the availability of accommodation. However, I will look carefully at what my noble friend said in the earlier part of his speech and will see that it is conveyed to my right honourable friend who, I hope, will be responsible for the Bill from tomorrow.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I wonder whether I may raise a point of clarification. As I understand the Bill, the whole shift in emphasis will be away from the devision between furnished and unfurnished accommodation, towards a distinction between whether or not the landlord is resident. One of the advantages of this system will be that if someone owns a house in which there is considerable spare accommodation he will let it to all the groups of people who need it. Am I to understand from what
112
the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, that the redrafted Schedule 2 will allow a resident landlord to give fixed term tenancies of a variable length of time, with security for a given length of time, but with the right—should his family circumstances alter—to have the accommodation back at the end of that length of time? If my understanding is correct, this seems to be a distinct improvement to the Bill, because it gives flexibility and will do what I feel to be very important; that is, encourage people who have large under-occupied houses to let them.
LORD SHEPHERD: That is my understanding, provided of course that it is for only one fixed term tenancy. It cannot be repeated for the same tenant.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.49 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 15, line 30, after ("building") insert ("and that bulding is not a purpose-built block of flats").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 23. Amendment No. 18 limits the resident landlord exemption so as to prevent it from applying to tenancies of purpose-built blocks of flats. This term is defined in new subsection (6) of Section 5A which is introduced by Amendment No. 23. In the original version, the tenancy of a dwelling house in a block of flats would not have been protected if the owner of the block occupied another dwelling house in that block as his residence. This would have presented a possibility for exploitation by commercial landlords who could have claimed the benefit of exemption by investing the ownership of a block of flats in an individual director. It was therefore decided to prevent such misuse of the provision by specifically excluding blocks of flats from the term "building".
The word "building" is preferred to "house" which, in Rent Act terms, may include a flat in a block of flats. "House" is not defined in rent legislation although it is used in the Acts. It is subject to interpretation in the light of a vast body of existing case law, most of which concerns the Housing Act. The word "building" would of course cover such structures as converted stables or

113
warehouses, renovated priories, barns, and so on, if these contained dwelling houses.
The Amendment to some extent meets the points made at Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, and by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the width of the resident landlord's exemption, because it provides a new restriction of scope and my noble friend tabled an Amendment to restrict the scope to buildings in which there were no more than two tenanted dwelling houses in addition to the dwelling house occupied by the resident landlord. This Amendment goes some way towards doing this by virtue of the definition of a purpose-built block of flats in subsection (6), but it is not desirable to limit the scope of the exemption further by defining the structure so specifically that it does not cover all possible circumstances. For example, a house, as commonly understood, which has been divided into flats may be capable of conversion back into a single unit of accommodation for use by the landlord and his family. With that explanation, I hope that the House will accept the Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
7.52 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved as an Amendment to Amendment No. 18A:
Page 15, line 30, in the words proposed to be inserted, leave out ("purpose-built").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move an Amendment to my noble friend's Amendment and that is to leave out the words "purpose-built". I speak also to the other Manuscript Amendments Nos. 23A, 23B and 23C on the list which has been duplicated. The effect of those other Amendments would be to define a block of flats in this way: that a building would be a block of flats provided it contains three or more flats.
My Lords, I recognise that my noble friend's Amendment goes a little way towards meeting the objections that both I and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, were making to the wide resident landlord exemption in the Bill as it was printed. But I feel that it does not go very far. The problem will be with the larger London terraced houses with which both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and myself have experience. One would have to go back into the history of the late 1890s to discover how these were constructed. One
114
can imagine difficult researches having to be instituted to discover, in the kind of large house of which I once occupied a part, whether or not the butler had a separate flat in the basement.
As my noble friend's Amendment is at present drafted it gives rise to this kind of consideration and it will be difficult to draw the line. Of course, I understand that what I would expect and what I am sure my noble friend suspects is that most of these large terraced houses were originally built in the late Victorian age for single occupancy by the growing bourgeoisie who needed spacious accommodation in which to live. But it is nevertheless rather absurd. However, my noble friend's Amendment recognises the point that I have been making all along, that where the building was all along designed to be separately occupied by different households there is no case for retaining a resident landlord exemption. There is no difference in principle between a purpose built block of flats and a purpose converted block of flats. There are many of these Victorian terraces, which are now converted into half a dozen, or sometimes a dozen flats or flatlets, where the same reasoning which has prompted this Amendment equally applies.
My Lords, I recognise that the Amendment that I put forward to my noble friend's Amendment is using his formula to reinstate something very similar to the words of the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on Committee. Because it does that and because I know that it will meet with criticism from my noble friend and certainly with opposition from the Opposition Front Bench, I believe that something more needs to be said about the argument used against the Bill and against narrowing the resident landlord exemption; namely, that it will dry up the stock of letting accommodation.
I recognise that where an owner occupier has a spare room or a spare floor, he may be reluctant to let it if he feels he will not be able to get possession if later on he changes his mind and finds that he needs the accommodation. But in the majority of cases that those who work in this field have to contend with, the landlord lives in one floor out of four or five floors. He cannot afford not to let because he has mortgage payments

115
to keep up. So he will either keep on letting—and if my Amendment is passed he will have to recognise the obligation to provide the families to whom he lets with a home—or, if he does not want to do that, let him sell and let the local authority or a housing trust take over the house—and probably they will make much better landlords in that field.
I believe that this fear of drying-up the stock of letting accommodation has been grossly exaggerated during the course of this debate. It applies only to the small extra accommodation in what is basically a single household home. There I recognise it has validity. Therefore, this Amendment would allow the owner occupier to let one floor of his home without giving the tenant full protection. But once he lets two floors or more—and anyone who has two or more spare floors to let must have bought far too large a house and is most probably running a business and receiving a fair income—then in those cases they would be outside the proposed exemption to the Bill. I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I too am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the careful consideration he has obviously given to the case that was advanced on Committee stage of restricting the rights of the resident landlord. But I am also forced to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, that we have not gone far enough here, and that there is no logical distinction between the purpose-built and the purpose-converted block of flats, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said. Those of us who are familiar with London will be well aware, as he said, that in a place such as Pimlico where you have these large Victorian houses—many of which have five storeys and a basement which can also be let off separately as a flat, so that you have six separate dwellings in all—there can be no logical distinction between a building of that kind and one that was purpo sely constructed to hold six flats in the first place. The noble Lord should perhaps give further consideration to this matter to see whether he cannot draft a form of wording, when the Bill goes to another place, that will take into account the purpose conversions as well as the purpose-built. It surely cannot be difficult for the lawyers to
116
bring in that element as well. The arguments that the noble Lord has advanced in moving his Amendments show that by doing this we shall not dry up the stock of accommodation, particularly in London. That seems to me irrefutable. The cost of large Victorian houses in Pimlico, for example, is very high indeed despite the fallback in the property market, and nobody will withhold accommodation from the market when he is paying high interest charges to the bank or to whoever he has had to borrow the money from in order to acquire the property.
While I am extremely grateful to the Government for what they have done and the extent to which they have met the arguments proposed on Committee, I hope that before the Bill reaches another place they will go a little further and tighten up the resident landlord clause to the extent that we have suggested.
8.0 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Gifford, has raised a different matter and a very important point and, as he will not be surprised to hear, I cannot accept it. If I understood him correctly, he is saying that there is no difference between a purpose-built block of flats and a large house converted into flats. I should have thought that there were very real differences. I will tell him one. When I was on a planning committee, we used to have a great many planning applications for the conversions of Victorian houses. If a Victorian house is properly converted it can be made into three or four flats which provide very good homes for people. Once it is decided that the resident landlord rule will not apply, it is very easy to see that no one would bother to convert. You will simply have a large house, unconverted, full of people, because then the resident landlord rule would be bound to apply.
It seems to me that there is a very real danger of encouraging a great deal of deteriorating slum property. The noble Lord shakes his head, but I think he has already accepted that this will be so. He said that we were exaggerating the fear of the drying up of accommodation to let, and yet when we had the little debate as to when the Bill was to come into force his great argument for bringing it into force the day after Royal

117
Assent was that so many landlords were going to evict tenants, and so on. One cannot have the argument both ways, arguing first of all that everybody will want to get rid of their furnished tenants and therefore you must bring the Bill in immediately; and three Amendments later saying that this is a grossly exaggerated argument and that no one will want to do so.
My third argument is this. I agree that I am not, like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, or the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, familiar with conditions in Pimlico, but I can think of other situations where somebody buys a Victorian house. The argument is that it is too large. Very well, it is too large and it is expensive, but they have bought it because they wish to live somewhere reasonably centrally in a town. For many people who buy houses the alternative is either to buy one that is too large and let part of it, or to buy a house a very long way out. Everybody who is concerned about towns recognises that one of the reasons why they have so many problems is that middle class people and people who are slightly better off have gone out from the centre of towns to live somewhere on the edge or in surrounding villages. The result is that we have a multiplicity of problems in towns, and it seems to me that the same argument applies. In the case of buying large houses and making proper conversions and letting the flats, which would be the effect of this Amendment, you could help to create social problems in towns.
I quite accept that you could have a loophole in the case of a purpose-built block of flats where you have a resident landlord and say this is a qualification. I accept this point, but I cannot accept that the same argument applies in the case of the large house. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will consider that these are very serious arguments.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would agree with the noble Baroness that the case she has put forward is a serious matter. One of the problems I have had in drafting this Amendment was to strike the right balance between the case that was put by my noble friend Lord Gifford and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the problems and difficulties which the noble Baroness has in
118
mind. My feeling was that we had struck the right balance, but perhaps one can never really satisfy one side or the other when striking a balance of this sort. Clearly we do not wish to create a situation where, at least in the mind of a landlord or a potential landlord, things get so tough that he will not put premises on the market. That was very much in my mind when we were considering this Amendment. However, since this is but a step forward, an Amendment which I view for the first time—and I have no doubt that noble Lords have seen it only for a matter of a day or so—I will have another look at this matter and will consult my right honourable friend; but I would not wish to mislead my noble friends into believing that we could go very much further. As I say, one has sought to strike a balance and it is difficult to know where the balance should lie. I thought we had got it just about right, but I will look at it again.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, may I qualify one or two points raised by the noble Baroness. It is certainly not my purpose in putting forward these Amendments to discourage landlords from making conversions. That was a thought in an earlier Amendment which I put forward which relied on the Race Relations Act criteria, where the landlord who shared facilities would be within the exemption and self-contained lettings would not. This Amendment repeats the effect of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, on Committee, and would apply whether or not the building was specially converted.
The noble Baroness accused me of trying to have it both ways. This assuredly is not the case. The reason why landlords are seeking possession at the moment is that no doubt they feel—and they may be right—that they will make more money by selling now with vacant possession than by continuing to let under the restriction of the new Act. But once the Act has come into force and the landlord is saddled with tenants to whom he has the responsibility of ensuring protection under the law, then he will decide either to sell or to stomach this Act and re-let. It is unlikely, in my view, that he will leave a large house empty because he does not like giving tenants a home. That would

119
be an uneconomic thing to do. One must remember that the idea of resident landlords with protected tenants is not something new which is being introduced by this Bill. There have been resident landlords and protected tenants ever since rent legislation started. Many landlords and many purchasers of homes have to accept controlled tenants when they buy a house. In my experience there has sometimes been friction, but there has not been a great outcry that we cannot go on having controlled tenants. There has been a recognition of the law allowing controlled tenants to remain in their homes, and this will be the case once this legislation is passed.
In reply to my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I do not want to press this matter further and I accept that he will not only look at it again but will ensure that the matters raised in this House are drawn to the attention of his right honourable friend. I would only say to him that it is not so much a question of striking a balance, that is to say trying to please the landlord lobby and the tenant lobby. That is not the right approach. The right approach is to make a sound political judgment as to the social effect of legislation you are introducing. If the noble Lord and his right honourable friend consider the various points—as I am sure they have—and what has been said in this field, I am sure that they will realise progressively that they are in fact being faced with a landlord lobby. If they look at the situation objectively they will realise that if the law says so people will recognise that tenants should have protection and will not be deterred from making a fair income by that fact. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment to the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.10 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21.
Page 15, leave out lines 32 and 33 and insert—
("(b) the tenancy was granted by a person who, at the time that he granted it, occupied").
Page 15,line 36, after ("(c)") insert
("subject to subsection (2) below").
Page 15,line 39, leave out ("either").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I moved Amendment No. 17 I spoke to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 22. With permission, I seek to move Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 41, leave out from ("building") to ("a") in line 17 on page 16 and insert—
("(2) In determining whether the condition in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above is at any time fulfilled with respect to a tenancy, there shall be disregarded—

(a) any period of not more than 14 days beginning with the date on which the interest of the landlord under the tenancy becomes vested at law and in equity in an individual who, during that period, does not occupy as his residence another dwelling-house which forms part of the building concerned;

(b) if, within a period falling within paragraph (a) above, the individual concerned notifies the tenant in writing of his intention to occupy as his residence another such dwelling-house as is referred to in that paragraph, the period beginning with the date on which the interest of the landlord under the tenancy becomes vested in that individual as is mentioned in that paragraph and ending—

(i) at the expiry of the period of 6 months beginning on that date, or

(ii) on the date on which that interest ceases to be so vested, or

(iii) on the date on which the condition in subsection (1)(c) above again applies, whichever is the earlier; and

(c) any period of not more than 12 months beginning with the date on which the interest of the landlord under the tenancy becomes, and during which it remains, vested

(i) in the personal representatives of a deceased person acting in that capacity; or

(ii) in trustees as such; or

(iii) by virtue of section 9 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, in the Probate Judge, within the meaning of that Act.

(3) During any period when—

(a) the interest of the landlord under the tenancy referred to in subsection (1) above is vested in trustees as such, and

(b) that interest is or, if it is held on trust for sale, the proceeds of its sale are held on trust for any person who occupies as his residence a dwelling house which forms part of the building referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection,

121
the condition in paragraph (c) of that subsection shall be deemed to be fulfilled and, accordingly, no part of that period shall be disregarded by virtue of subsection (2) above.

(4) Throughout any period which, by virtue of subsection (2) above, falls to be disregarded for the purpose of determining whether the condition in subsection (1)(c) above is fulfilled with respect to a tenancy, no order shall be made for possession of the dwelling-house subject to that tenancy, other than an order which might be made if that tenancy were or, as the case may be, had been a regulated tenancy.
(5) This section does not apply to a tenancy of a dwelling-house which forms part of a building if—

(a) the tenancy is granted to a person who, immediately before it was granted, was a protected or statutory tenant of that dwelling-house or of any other dwelling-house in that building, or

(b) the tenant yis a tenancy for a term of years certain and is granted to a person who, immediately before it was granted, was the tenant under an earlier tenancy of that dwelling-house or any other dwelling-house in that building and, by virtue of this section, that earlier tenancy was not a protected tenancy,

and for the purposes of this subsection").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment in moving Amendment No. 18. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 21, at end insert—
("(6) For the purposes of this section a building is a purpose-built block of flats, if as constructed it contained, and it contains, two, or more flats; and for this purpose "flat" means a dwelling-house which—

(a) forms part only of a building; and

(b) is separated horizontally from another dwelling-house which forms part of the same building.

(7) For the purposes of this section, a person shlal be treated as occupying a dwelling-house as his residence if, so far as the nature of the case allows, he fulfils the same conditions as, by virtue of section 3(2) above, are reuired to be fulfilled by a statutory tenant of a dwelling-house.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 17, line 37, at end insert—
("(5) If, immediately before a tenancy became a protected tenancy as mentioned in subsection (2) above, the rates in respect of the dwelling concerned were borne as mention in subsection (2A) of section 74 of this Act and the fact that they were so borne was noted as required by that subsection, then,
122
in the application of Part IV of this Act in relation to the protected tenancy, section 47(2) of this Act shall be deemed to apply.
(6) If, in a case where a tenancy becomes a protected tenancy as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above,—

(a) a notice to quit had been served in respect of the dwelling concerned before the date on which the tenancy became a protected tenancy, and

(b) the period at the end of which that notice to quit takes effect had, before that date, been extended under Part VI of this Act, and

(c) that period has not expired before that date,

the notice to quit shall take effect on the day following that date (whenever it would otherwise take effect) and, accordingly, on that day the protected tenancy shall become a statutory tenancy.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 25. These Amendments introduce new subsections into subsection 102(a) of the 1968 Rent Act. Subsection (5) follows from the provisions of Clause 6(3), that in future rates borne by the landlord shall be noted separately on the register of Part VI rents. The new subsection provides that where this has been done and the furnished letting subsequently becomes a protected tenancy because the resident landlord exemption no longer applies, the amount of the rent shall be recoverable by the landlord in the same way as where a fair rent is registered and it is noted in the register that rates are borne by the landlord. Subsection (6) makes provision for the determination of any suspended notice to quit in a case where the furnished letting becomes a protected tenancy because the resident landlord exemption no longer applies. This provision parallels the transitional one in Clause 4 for furnished lettings which become protected on the Bill's commencement date. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 25.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 29, at end insert—
("(5) If, immediately before a tenancy became a protected tenancy as mentioned in subsection (2) above, the rates in respect of the dwelling-house were borne as mentioned in subsection (2A) of section 89 of this Act and the fact that they were so borne was noted as required by that subsection, then, in the application of Part IV of this Act in relation

123
to the protected tenancy, section 43(2) of this Act shall be deemed to apply.
(6) If, in a case where a tenancy becomes a protected tenancy as mentioned in subsection (2)(a) above,—

(a) a notice to quit had been served in respect of the dwelling-house concerned before the date on which the tenancy became a protected tenancy, and

(b) the period at the end of which that notice to quit takes effect had, before that date, been extended under Part VII of this Act, and

(c) that period has not expired before that date,

the notice to quit shall take effect on the day following that date (whenever it would otherwise take effect) and, accordingly, on that day the protected tenancy shall become a statutory tenancy.").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Transitional provisions]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 19, line 30, after first ("tenancy") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26 and also to speak to Amendment No. 27. These Amendments introduce a technical amendment to sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3, to make good a minor omission in the Bill as drafted. They also provide in the new sub-paragraph (4A) that the rent registered under Part VI for a furnished letting shall be deemed to be registered under Part IV when the furnished letting becomes a statutory tenancy by virtue of the provisions of sub-paragraph (4). Clause 4 makes a similar provision for lettings which become protected by virtue of Clause 1 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 27.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, at end insert ("and

(b)as the previous contractual tenancy for the purposes of paragraph 2 of Part III of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act. (4A) In any case where—

(a) immediately before the commencement date a rent is registered for a dwelling under the relevant Part of the Rent Act, and

(b) on the commencement date a person becomes a statutory tenant of that dwelling by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above,

the amount which is so registered under the relevant Part of the Rent Act shall be deemed
124
to be registered under Part IV of that Act as the rent for that dwelling, and that registration shall be deemed to take effect on the commencement date.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enactments repealed]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 28.
Page 20, column 3, leave out lines 15 and 16.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 28 and speak to Amendment 29. Both these Amendments are consequential on the deletion of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1, and they were Amendments No. 14 and 15 on the Marshalled List. I beg to move Amendment 28.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, column 3, leave out lines 32 and 33.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended pursuant to Resolution:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, we have now reached the Third Reading of this Bill and I feel I cannot let this occasion pass without first of all saying to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, how grateful I am for the help that he has given to me. I must, however, indicate to him that, as I have said during the various stages, this Bill is not one which we on this side of the House can accept in principle. Although I have no doubt that it will be hailed as part of the "social contract"—or is it "social compact"?—and I accept that it will help those in furnished accommodation at present, there will be a great many people who will not be helped. I refer particularly to young married couples and young people generally, and anyone who needs for one reason or another to move about because of the nature of their employment. For this reason, I think the Bill will have a serious effect on our economy as a whole.

125
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said at an earlier stage, and he has repeated to-day, that he proposes to have discussions with local authorities on the effects of this Bill. I should be very interested to know, because presumably this is a matter to which the Government have given some attention, what advice and guidance they intend to give to local authorities in the light of the difficulties this Bill will create for a number of people. In particular, is the noble Lord going to advise them to review their housing programmes and to provide more accommodation for single people—perhaps a fixed proportion of it? This would meet the case of students or young people looking for work in cities. It would help, if it were, say, a onebedroomed flat, which would give a home of their own to a young married couple starting out in life. Will the noble Lord give local authorities guidance on how they are expected to help people who have to find temporary accommodation because of the nature of their work?—because in my experience this will bring a very new principle into local authority accommodation. It would mean that some accommodation would need to be left vacant for the person who might require it for a given but unexpected short time.
The Government have said quite consistently throughout the passage of this Bill that they expect the private landlord to disappear and they expect accommodation to be provided by local authorities, either by building it themselves or by buying up private houses. It is only right therefore that they should tell the House what advice they propose to give to local authorities about meeting these problems, because they are very real ones and, to the best of my knowledge and belief, very few housing committees will consider them at all. They will say they have long waiting lists for families, and these represent their first priority. So the net effect of this Bill will be that local authorities, unless urged to do so, will not meet the need, and the private landlord will not do so because of Bills of this nature.
I cannot give a welcome to this Bill, because it seems to me it will have the most unfortunate consequences. I believe that many people, if they can, will gain possession of their property and will begin
126
to do so very rapidly. I regret to say that I see an increase in the amount of dilapidated property because the good landlord who expects the gap between tenants to be a time when he can do the necessary internal repairs and redecorations (for which of course he will be responsible in the case of furnished property), will find great practical difficulties in the way of doing this. Therefore, we may see far more dilapidated property.
I suspect that as a result of the Bill we shall see more of the bed and breakfast accommodation. Houses which were let as flats will become kinds of pseudo-hotels. I cannot see that this will be a desirable improvement. There will undoubtedly be a decrease in the choice of housing available to people. I know that it is difficult for many people to find the kind of accommodation they would like. But as a result of the Bill, there will undoubtedly be still less accommodation. I do not genuinely believe it will help the problem of homelessness. I know many people in housing are concerned because homelessness is so often caused because tenants are evicted from private furnished accommodation. But people only accept that accommodation because there is nowhere else for them to go. Unless someone provides that accommodation for them, they will simply not have the private furnished accommodation into which to go.
I do not believe that the Government have considered this problem of homelessness. The Bill could make the situation worse rather than better, because whatever we may say to the contrary, it is a sad fact that despite all the houses built since the ending of the War, the problem of homelessness remains with us in a form which did not exist before the war. It is difficult not to draw the conclusion that a great deal of homelessness has been caused because of the shrinking private market to which this Bill will simply add. There will be many hardship cases. We hear much about bad landlords, and I accept that there are bad landlords. But there are many good ones. Many landlords and tenants have over long periods of time enjoyed perfectly happy relations. For a great many of these people the Bill will not make matters any better. My Lords, for all these reasons we on this side of the House do not support the Bill.
8.23 p.m.
LORD MELCHETT: My Lords, I wonder whether I may make one point to my noble friend Lord Shepherd which arose on the Committee stage of the Bill and which has not come up again during the Report stage? This is to do with Case 3A which gives landlords grounds for possession where the tenant mistreats furniture. My noble friend Lord Shepherd kindly said during the Committee stage that he would look at this matter and he said that he would respond to the Amendments which we put down. They suggested that there should be an obligation on the courts to consider whether payment of damages should be ordered before giving an order for eviction. My noble friend Lord Shepherd said that he would look at that carefully and communicate with us. I wonder whether there is any chance of him producing that communication when he winds up this debate
Having said that, I wonder whether I could say a brief word to the noble Baroness opposite. On every occasion when we have discussed the Bill the noble Baroness has talked at some length about three particular groups of people whom she feels will be hard done by: young married couples, young people and people moving homes. One group she has not talked about at such great length are those people who are being made homeless daily from the furnished sector. Two-thirds of all families becoming homeless come from the furnished sector. In some areas it is considerably more than that. The Grieve Report on Homelessness found in 1969 that 52 per cent. of all applicants for emergency accommodation came from the furnished sector. The noble Baroness, and her supporters opposite, might at least give equal weight to the misery which this homelessness is causing daily, as opposed to the hypothetical dangers which the various groups she has mentioned so often may face when the Bill becomes law.
One cannot help being young, but people in the other two categories may in theory make a conscious decision as to whether to set up a home or to move home. That contrasts starkly with the group of people who can wake up in the morning and find a notice to quit on their doormat and face homelessness within a matter of months. I do not believe that the noble Baroness is being entirely accurate when she says that this is a group
128
who have nowhere else to live. On the whole, people being made homeless from the furnished sector have lived in the accommodation for a very long time. They have not taken the accommodation on in a desperate search for somewhere to live. Certainly, in Pimlico people have often lived in the area for 30, 40 or 50 years. They have worked and lived in that area and are thrown out only when the landlord decides to sell the property and make more money in that way. I think that the noble Baroness ought to take into account that this Bill will prevent that ruthless throwing out by landlords of tenants who have families and who have been living in the accommodation for long periods of time.
Having said that, I accept, as everybody in this House has accepted, that this Bill will not increase the amount of furnished lettings and will probably add to the general decline which has taken place over the years in both unfurnished and furnished lettings. This Bill is a first step in a programme, which will continue in the future under this Government, of the provision of alternative sources of housing accommodation. After the Bill becomes law it must be followed by an increase in housing association housing and by an increase in building, particularly of council houses, as well as an increase of houses taken into municipal ownership. This is already starting to happen in Central London. My Lords, this Bill is an excellent first step and bodes well for the future.
8.27 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I reply in a most sincere way to the short debate that we have had on Third Reading, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young for the work she has put into this Bill? A great deal of work has been involved because anything connected with rent legislation is extremely complex and takes a great deal of time, even when assistance is provided, to understand it. May I also say to my noble friends Lord Gifford and Lord Melchett now much I have appreciated their own contribution and persistence in matters about which they feel so strongly. In the case of my noble friend Lord Melchett, I do not need to say anything more in regard to this Bill and the reasons why it has

129
been introduced, because he has done so in a most admirable form.
At the end of the day, there is only one solution; that is, more housing, both public and private. When the noble Baroness, Lady Young, speaks most feelingly about the homeless and about the shortage of accommodation, I cannot but reflect that she was a Member of a Government which saw continuously over the years a gradual, steady, persistent decline in housing built for local authorities and, in more recent years, even in the private sector. I say to the noble Baroness, with the utmost friendship, that when this Government took office in February we found the building industry knocked to pieces. It will require a great deal of effort by the present Administration to get the building industry to have sufficient confidence and resources, both of money and manpower, to be able to deal with the major problem that confronts us—the provision of houses for the local authority and private sectors. It is indeed a damning indictment of the previous Administration if one looks in this particular field.
In regard to my friend Lord Melchett and his point about furniture, I understand there is a letter in my box tonight for me to sign, and I hope that he will receive it tomorrow. There was only one further aspect that I would deal with. I accept from the noble Baroness the very great need for publicity of this legislation to be given to both landlords and tenants. I will write to the noble Baroness as to what we intend to do, but I give an undertaking that we will pursue the same sort of campaign as on previous rent legislation in order that all the interested bodies will have adequate leaflets and material so that they can understand this complex legislation.
The Bill now goes to another place. We have done a good deal of useful work on it. I hope we may have saved some time in another place because I share with my noble friend Lord Melchett the feeling that this legislation is necessary. I cannot help but feel that when it is passed there will be many thousands of people who will go to bed feeling a little more secure in their tenanted residences than they now do. If that is so, then this legislation is worth while.
Bill read 3a; an Amendment (Privilege) made.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Shepherd.)
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for the very kind remarks he has made. I have found this Bill an interesting but a difficult one, and I am grateful for all the help I have received, in particular for the notes on clauses and for the opportunity of discussing the various technical points with members of his Department, for whose help I have always been and remain grateful. Having said this, which I do sincerely, I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to something he perhaps did not intend to do, which was to move a manuscript Amendment as he did on Report stage. I have now had an opportunity to look at the Companion to Standing Orders. Although I realise that it is probably not for me to advise the House on them, the Order in fact states that "manuscript Amendments are not out of order on Report but the disadvantages and inconvenience attaching to the moving of manuscript Amendments in Committee are even greater on Report than at the Committee stage".
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness proceed, because if she does she will see there are occasions when it is quite right to move manuscript Amendments in order to make an adjustment or to meet a point that has already been made with force.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I was not going to go on to say that anything the noble Lord did was out of order, but it is difficult when we have agreed on this side to take this Bill quickly through the House. We have had only a week between Committee and Report. We have had all the difficulties of printing, and we have known and accepted the reasons for the difficulties. We have tried to deal with these very complicated matters quickly. And then we are confronted with a sequence of manuscript Amendments, one of which was not written down. It makes the situation quite difficult. I leave the point at that. I would not have raised it at all, but I believe it to be a quite serious issue that we now have only two weeks between the Royal Assent and this Bill's coming

131
into effect, instead of the month as the Bill has suggested. I have not had an opportunity to find out whether this is a usual practice, nor indeed have I any idea of the numbers of people who are likely to be severely inconvenienced by it. But I leave the point there. I feel, however, I should in fairness make it for the many people who will have to study this Bill. I do not wish to end on a disagreeable note, because I have been grateful for the help and co-operation we have received, and I have been grateful to those on this side of the House who have supported me in my Amendments.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. I will certainly take note of her—I will not say criticism but her admonishments. I felt that on this particular occasion there was substance in the points which my noble friends had put to me. I had intended to resist, but I took into account the powerful arguments they had put, and responded to them. I am grateful for what the noble Baroness said.
Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

NORTHERN IRELAND (YOUNG PERSONS) BILL [H.L.]
8.37 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In spite of the fact that it is late and our audience is not quite so large as we are generally used to, I do not feel I have licence to deal with this Bill in a perfunctory way and I must, because it concerns the liberty of the subject and the safety of the public, go into its provisions in some detail. One of the saddest features of what is happening in Northern Ireland at the moment is the extent to which the young are increasingly used for the purpose of terrorist activity. Nowadays, it is quite common in Northern Ireland for a 15-year-old or 16-year-old boy to stand charged with murder or attempted murder or with other serious offences involving the possession of explosives or firearms. The noble
132
and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, pointed out in his Report in December, 1972, that the I.R.A. had frequently used young boys to carry out serious acts of terrorism and these young people have been known to shoot with intent to kill and to plant lethal explosives, and so long as they remain at liberty they provide a direct threat to human life.
Under Section 51 of the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968, a young person may be remanded in custody to a remand home and can be remanded to prison only if he is certified as unruly or depraved. The Northern Ireland courts have taken the view, which is quite easy to understand, that the fact that one is accused of a serious offence does not mean one has committed it and therefore the fact of this accusation is not evidence that the person is unruly or depraved. So there is a tendency, which one can understand, for Northern Ireland courts to send even children accused of the most serious scheduled offences to a remand home, and not to describe them as unruly and depraved and send them to prison.
At the time of the Commission of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, there was no secure remand home in Northern Ireland. There were four training schools—one for Catholic girls and one for Catholic boys, one for Protestant girls and one for Protestant boys. They were all open homes with only the most modest way of preventing escape. Following the Report of Lord Diplock's Commission, a secure remand home was built and in 1973 it was opened at Lisnevin as a training school to provide an assessment unit for 20 boys on remand and an intensive care unit for a further 20 boys committed under training school orders. The distinguishing feature of Lisnevin is that it is interdenominational. Nobody knows whether the boys or the staff are Catholic, Protestant, or anything else. That is something which is both healthy and agreeable in Northern Ireland. However, in the peculiar circumstances prevailing there, this was not enough. It was not an easy place to escape from but it was not an impossible place to break into.
The normal concept of a remand home is a place from which boys occasionally abscond, usually going home where they are quickly picked up by the

133
police and brought back. That is acceptable in society in normal circumstances, but the circumstances of Northern Ireland today are far from normal. What happened in Lisnevin is that after it had been open for a few months two people came in on a visitors' pass—a perfectly genuine one—held up the staff with pistols, tied them up and marched out with two boys. The staff said. "That is not what we were hired for. That is not the way we run things in a remand home. We are quite prepared to have a home which is difficult to escape from, but we cannot run a home which people can break into as easily as this if we are to have boys on scheduled offences."
My Lords, to give you some idea of the scale of the problem, since August 1, 1973, 39 boys charged with scheduled offences have absconded a total of 66 times, which your Lordships will be quick to see means that each boy, or many of the boys, have done it more than once. Of these, three were charged with murder, two with attempted murder, 21 with possession of firearms, two with armed robbery, five with causing explosions, one with intimidation, one with membership of illegal organisations, one with possession of illegal documents and three with riotous behaviour. Of these 39 boys, 13 are still at large. Of those still at large, two were charged with murder, 10 with possession of firearms and one with intimidation. If noble Lords bear in mind that scheduled offences—that is, offences scheduled in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973—are those considered to be "terrorist" offences, clearly this situation cannot be allowed to continue.
However, the problem is a little wider than this. It is not just a question of absconding. As I have said already, last November three boys were abducted from Lisnevin. Therefore one has the problem of boys not only absconding from an open remand home like St. Patrick's, which is a Catholic one, but being extracted from a closed one at Lisnevin. It is lucky that on this particular occasion firearms were not used, nobody was hurt and the alarm system worked so that the boys were picked up before they got very far. However, that is not what you can expect a really dedicated remand home staff to do. It is not the kind of
134
thing for which they were hired and trained.
My Lords, it is hard for the Army or the Royal Ulster Constabulary to find a young person back on the streets a day or two after they have arrested him at considerable personal risk. The worst feature is that the boy becomes a hero, a fugitive on the run, passing from gangster to gangster, missing out on education and the normal pleasures and pains of adolescence, who is quite likely to end up being shot or blowing himself up with a home-made bomb. This has happened on more than one occasion. I feel very strongly that we have a moral duty to prevent such a young person from drifting straight into the condition of a hardened criminal and vicious terrorist, a danger which is only too real, as those noble Lords who have experience of Northern Ireland will appreciate. We have another moral responsibility. There is a real danger that an absconder who has already committed crimes of this kind will commit further terrorist offences, perhaps involving the lives of others while he is on the run. Nobody likes remanding young persons to prison but the alternative is quite unacceptable.
I am afraid that the only secure institution available in Northern Ireland to-day for a young person on remand pending trial is prison. Steps have accordingly been taken to provide an entirely isolated juvenile wing on the ground floor of the hospital building in Belfast Prison in which juveniles are segregated from adults. Special arrangements have been made to provide for separate exercise facilities and an educational programme. Certain Members from another place have taken the opportunity to see these new arrangements, and I hope and believe they are satisfied that they are appropriate for their purpose.
The scope of the Bill is confined to dealing with the place of custody of young persons aged between 14 and 17 charged with scheduled offences. We are concerned here with a relatively small number of individual cases. The Bill in no way interferes with the powers of the courts in relation to sentencing. Perhaps I may run quickly through the Bill. It is not a long one. Clause 1 provides that the Secretary of State will be able to issue a direction to determine the place of

135
custody during the period of remand of a young person charged with a scheduled offence. Such directions will be given where the Secretary of State is satisfied under the terms of Clause 1(4) that it is necessary in an individual case that a young person should be held on remand in the security of prison rather than in a remand home in order to prevent his escape so as to ensure his safety or the safety of others.
My Lords, the direction will have a limited duration of two months, during which time the young person concerned will re-appear regularly in court at the normal 8-day or 14-day interval until committed for trial. Clause 1 allows such directions to be given in respect of young persons already charged with scheduled offences and at present remanded in custody to remand homes. In other words, such young persons as are at the moment in remand homes can without further ado be directed to move into the remand centre. Obviously, this is a sensible provision.
Clause 2 indicates that the Bill is a temporary measure and will expire (unless continued in force) on January 24, 1975. The Secretary of State announced in another place earlier this year that he would have to renew the Emergency Provisions Act in July. The Bill which is before the House to-day has been drafted on the assumption that the Order to extend the Act will run for not less than six months. That is in the light of the present security situation and the time which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, may need for his Commission to report on the Act. If Parliament decides on a longer period, arrangements will be made to extend the provisions of the Bill correspondingly.
My Lords, it would be wrong to conclude without paying tribute to the dedication and high standard of the work of the staff of remand homes and training schools in Northern Ireland. I have been around every one of them. I have been enormously struck by the dedication, the courage and the independence with which the staff run these homes, and by the immense kindness and care which they bestow upon their charges. One must never forget that to be kind to one person in Northern Ireland to-day may involve risking one's life with another, and that is
136
something which these people do perfectly cheerfully.
My Lords, I hope that in addition to meeting an urgent security need the Bill will assist in enabling the training schools to carry on the vital work which they are undertaking and which, in my opinion, they are doing extremely well in helping those who can be helped in order to bring them back to society in a rehabilitated state. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
8.49 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the need for this Bill arises from a problem with which I suppose most people in this country are unfamiliar. I think it would be fair to claim that over the years this House has always taken a close interest—indeed, it has many experts who are well qualified to take a close interest—in the variety of judicial sentences which Parliament has agreed shall become the law of the land as the years go by. However, it must be most unusual for either House of Parliament to be asked to legislate to prevent the threat of violence being directed from outside against institutions to which people are remanded or committed. Among the reasons for the Bill which the noble Lord has been so good as to give the House, this is one of the primary purposes and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has explained the nature of the threat to those who at the moment are being asked to deal with all young persons who are on remand.
I am also grateful to the noble Lord for reminding the House of the reason why the courts cannot remove this threat unless the law is changed. The threat to the training schools does not of course arise from those youngsters who are "more adventurous than delinquent", as the Diplock Report described them. Such boys and girls make the task of the Security Forces difficult and dangerous but I think we would agree that these young people can and do benefit from a period of training. As the noble Lord said, it is now quite common, however, that among those who are on remand there are teenagers accused of crimes which are not only included among the scheduled offences but which are among the most terrible of the scheduled offences

137
Such boys and girls may well be connected with terrorist organisations outside which will stick at nothing to effect their escape.
The noble Lord reminded us that in 1972 the Diplock Report said that there were only two institutions in Northern Ireland to which boys could be remanded. If I remember correctly, both of those have suffered intrusion. In the case of the Roman Catholic training school, it was intrusion of a particularly cruel nature which ended in the abduction and then the murder of a boy who was suffering from some form of mental handicap.
The noble Lord has explained that these institutions and the girls' establishments are not secure; they are training schools, and the Diplock Report recommended that a secure unit should be set up with great urgency. It was hoped that Lisnevin would be able to include this role in the work that it did. But as the noble Lord reminded us—and I must say that I had forgotten this—of course Lisnevin suffered a double intrusion which was extremely terrifying to the people who were working there.
If I may say so, it is typical of the interest which the noble Lord takes in a subject which I know has always been his greatest interest, that he has visited all the training schools in Northern Ireland. Like others who served there, I had the opportunity of visiting Lisnevin. I can testify to the devotion to their work and the practical commonsense of the staff, characteristics which I agree with the noble Lord apply to those who run the other training schools in Northern Ireland. I remember that when I visited Lisnevin there was at that time a 16-year old boy who had been remanded there, accused of a particularly bad and particularly serious terrorist offence and I remember that the staff were in no way reluctant to help this particular boy. Indeed, they said that they felt they were making progress, but what they naturally disliked was the effect on their work with other boys which extra tight security would impose—security which was especially necessary with such a boy in order to ensure safety and to prevent escape, the precise criteria which one finds in Clause 1(4) of this Bill is for a Secretary of State's direction.
138
So this Bill certainly provides a practical solution to this particular threat to the work of the training schools in Northern Ireland. But of course the Bill is dealing with young people between the ages of 14 and 17, and Parliament will wish to be absolutely satisfied that the sort of arrangements that are being made for young people who are subject to direction by the Secretary of State are suitable for young people of that age. The noble Lord has given what I think are important assurances on this, the first time the Bill has been debated in either House of Parliament about the effect of a direction under the Bill, and particularly the assurance that accommodation at the Belfast prison for young persons on remand will be separate and that education will be provided.
I should like to ask just two questions to end with. First, I realise that in introducing the Bill it is not the intention of the Government that all young persons charged with scheduled offences shall automatically be subject to a direction. The criteria in Clause 1(4) make this quite clear. It seemed implicit in what the noble Lord said, particularly in his catalogue of the number of times that boys who had been charged with scheduled offences had escaped, from, I think Lisnevin, a great number of young persons who are charged with scheduled offences will probably be subject to the Secretary of State's direction. This leads me to ask this question. If this is the case, it will certainly remove a source of great difficulty from Lisnevin. But I am wondering what in the future will really be the difference between Lisnevin, and the regime there, and the curriculum of the other training schools.
The other question that I wish to ask arises directly from the drafting of the Bill. It is really a Committee point, but as we are going to take all stages tomorrow I should like to ask it now, and the noble Lord may prefer to answer tomorrow. I am uncertain of the effect of Clause 3(2)(c) if, under the Constitution Act 1973, the treatment of offenders, including young persons, becomes a transferred matter at any time in the future. As things stand now, it seems to me that this Bill, quite rightly, gives Parliament control over the expiry or continuation of Clause 1. But if the treatment of

139
offenders were to become a matter transferred to a future Northern Ireland Executive, would the effect of Clause 3(2)(c) be that this Bill could be reactivated by a measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly? This Bill will enable the training schools in Northern Ireland to work with greater effect and it will ensure that the task of the Security Forces is not further endangered by the escape of young persons who have already been apprehended. For these reasons I agree with the noble Lord that the Bill is necessary, and I hope that it will pass through this House as rapidly as possible.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. I will try to answer rapidly the two questions which he asked. The second one (I always remember the second question better than the first) was in relation to the transferred matter. I am advised that the Bill is only applicable to young persons who have been charged with scheduled—that is to say, terrorist—offences, and the Bill provides a special power for dealing with such a young person while awaiting trial. Schedule 2 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, provides that special powers and other provisions for dealing with terrorism or subversion shall be excepted matters and excepted matters cannot be transferred. I think that is a fairly clear answer. Clearly this situation can be altered by legislation, but that is where we stand at the moment.
140
The other question was twofold: first, were we dealing with sufficient numbers and, secondly, were we giving them reasonable facilities. The answer in regard to the numbers is that this place that we have in the Belfast prison will take 16 to 20 persons. Remand should never last more than three months, though regrettably it sometimes does (but it often does not), so we think this would give a reasonable marginal turnover for the very difficult boys, and we think we can manage with this. As noble Lords know, there is a plan which will be ready in 1977 by which there will be a young offenders' centre at Hydebank, near Purtisburn, but, of course, this will not help us now. We hope to phase into this.
In regard to education, we have a part-time education officer already and we shall increase the education available. They have recreation, they have games, they have reasonable places to play them in. They are not quite as well off as they would be in Lisnevin, which has remarkable facilities, but they are really well off indeed compared with being on the streets. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.