Lords Sitting of 15 July 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.
The Earl of Breadalbane—Sat first in Parliament pursuant to the Peerages Act 1963.
The Viscount Torrington—Took the Oath.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES ACT: REGULATIONS
LORD CROOK: 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 all the regulations necessary to bring into force the Employment Agencies Act, as to which consultations were to take place with interested bodies, are now ready to be published.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment on June 21 sent to interested bodies for comment his proposals for the regulations to be made under Sections 2(2) and 5 of the Act. These are the principal regulations and they relate to the amount of the licence fee and the standards of conduct to be observed by employment agencies and businesses. Proposals for the remaining regulations are in preparation, and it is hoped to issue these fairly soon for comment.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply.

OIL RIGS: SAFETY ZONES
2.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to ensure that Soviet Government ships do not infringe safety zones around production platforms or exploration drilling rigs within the British zone of the Continental Shelf.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, a Soviet Government ship entered the safety zones of installations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf on June 24 and 25. The attention of the Soviet authorities was immediately drawn to the need to observe safety zones around installations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, and for the information which it gave to the House. May I ask him whether he is aware that my Question asked what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to ensure that Soviet ships do not infringe the safety zone? Could he be so kind as to answer that Question?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I thought I gave an indication, by saying what we have already done, of what we propose to do in the future if such infringements are reported. Additionally, we have under study interdepartmentally improvements in the speed and accuracy of reporting by the rig operators. But it is our experience, as deliberate infringement is very rare indeed, that the speed with which we can apply to the governmental authorities of the infringing ship in question is always important. We shall of course look to possible changes in the law of the sea, and also to technical changes in improving mechanical devices to provide evidence of infringement.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that further reply, may I ask whether the Government are considering the possibility of aerial patrols so that the activities of Soviet vessels in the North Sea and the Channel, which are now very common and sometimes dangerous, can be monitored, and so that either naval

837
or coastguard intervention may be provided should it be needed?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I should add that this kind of infringement is, happily, exceptional.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer a further question? I am much obliged for what he has said but can he say whether the coastguard was alerted to intervene on the occasion of these two incidents? Also, how far within the safety zones and how close to the installations in question did the Soviet ships come?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am advised that in fact it was the coastguard which was informed and which transmitted the information to the proper authorities on both these occasions. As to the distance between the rig and the infringing vessel, our calculation is that it was 950 feet, but this is disputed by the Soviet authorities, who admit that there was a vessel in the vicinity. They say that it was not within the limit of 500 metres. However, they do not contest for a moment the need not to infringe these safety zones.

BUSINESS
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 Goronwy-Roberts will be making a Statement on the situation in Cyprus. This might be a convenient moment to let the House know that dinners will be available to-night.
WORKINGTON HARBOUR BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
EDUCATION (MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL
2.43 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, T beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this short Bill is to extend to all minerals the power of the Chancery Court to confer on any person a right to search for or work any of the nine minerals mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Table in Section 1 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 and also to coal which is the subject of paragraph 3 of the Table. That Act itself is based on a large number of Acts dating from 1923. These nine minerals are iron ore and ironstone: tin, lead, copper, copper and tungsten ores: fluorspar, barytes and oil shale. In respect of all other minerals, other than these plus coal, the persons on whom the Court may confer such a right are at present restricted by the 1966 Act to persons who have an interest in the minerals, or in the case of minerals owned in small parcels, in minerals adjacent to them. That is what paragraph 2 of the Table to which I have referred provides. However, it may well be in the national interest that other minerals, such as stone, gravel, china clay, sand, should be worked no less than the nine minerals mentioned in Table 1.
This is not an uncomplicated matter, but I shall try to simplify it so far as I can and I shall leave out any points that are not immediately relevant to the purpose. The procedure for the grant of a right to search for or work any of the nine minerals is set out in Section 4 of the Act of 1966. Application has to be made to the Minister, who must transmit it to the Court unless he is satisfied that a prima facie case has not been made out. Section 3 lays down certain safeguards, limitations and conditions. The Court may not grant the right to search for or work minerals unless it is satisfied that it is in the national interest to do so, nor may the Court grant the right unless it is shown that it is not reasonably practicable for one of four specific reasons to obtain it by private agreement. These reasons are, first, that the persons with power to grant the right are numerous or have conflicting interests; second, that any of the persons cannot be ascertained or found; third, that any of the persons

839
from whom the right must be obtained has not the necessary powers of disposition, and fourth, that the person with power to grant the right unreasonably refuses to grant it or demands terms which are unreasonable. A further safeguard is that before transmitting the application to the Court the Minister must communicate with the person who is alleged to lack the necessary powers of disposition or to have refused to grant the right or to have demanded terms which are unreasonable.
When the Court is satisfied that the application falls within the limitations and complies with the requirements of the Act, it may grant the right to search for or work the minerals on such terms, subject to such conditions and for such period as it may think fit. In default of agreement between the parties on compensation or consideration to be paid by the applicant, the Court may also determine the amount to be paid by him. It can grant the right only provided it is satisfied that it is expedient in the national interest to do so.
There is one other safeguard which is extremely important. Planning permission must be obtained before the minerals can be actually worked. Local planning authorities have powers under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1973 to grant planning permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of their development plan. The directions are, in fact, those contained in the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) Direction 1965, with which there was issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government Circular No. 70/65 explaining the procedure for dealing with applications relating to development not in accordance with the plan. Where the proposal would not in the opinion of the local planning authority involve a substantial departure from the provisions of the plan, nor affect the whole of the neighbourhood, the local planning authority may deal with it themselves. In other cases they must give the Secretary of State the opportunity of issuing a direction how the application should be dealt with.
It is normal for undertakers wishing to work minerals to apply for planning permission before applying to the Minister
840
for the right to work the minerals. This is clearly in their interest and can be taken into consideration by the Court. This, then, my Lords, is the procedure already available to anyone who wants to seek or work any of the nine favoured minerals, and coal, mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Table in Section 1 of the 1966 Act. It is also available to anyone who wants to work any minerals and has any interest in the land. This Bill seeks simply to extend the procedure to anyone else who wants to seek for or work any minerals, provided the Court is satisfied that it is in the national interest that the minerals in question should be sought for or worked. The mere existence of these powers tends to bring the parties together; and in fact the number of cases that have been taken to Court is small; they relate mainly to ironstone. This shows the usefulness of this particular procedure. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
2.50 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I shall be brief because there is only one point with which I would be concerned. I believe my noble friend answered it in his last sentences. I am fully aware that the laws of minerals and mineral working are extremely complicated. However, as I understand it. at present if one of the nine minerals in the preferred list is found on an area of ground it is possible to obtain a court order granting permission to exploit that mineral provided that planning permission is subsequently obtained; and it is likely that if the court made an order saying that it was in the national interest planning permission would subsequently be obtained. If, however, a mineral is outside the list of nine—and that would include sand and gravel—then it is necessary to obtain planning permission in advance, and an agreement is then entered into between the extractor and the owner. It is only if the owner cannot or does not wish to have his minerals extracted that the extractor can then go along to the court, and only if the court is satisfied that it is in the national interest will the extractor be given permission to extract these minerals.

841
I fear, from what my noble friend said at the very end (although I may have got it wrong) that Section 265 of the Town and Country Planning Act is to be repealed. That is the section which provides the "national interest" basis. If all these other minerals were to be included with the list of preferred minerals, then it would mean that a High Court decision could be given on whether or not minerals should be extracted even if it were not in the national interest. If that were so, then the decision would be made between whether it was in the owner's interest or the extractor's interest, and I fear that this might leave many areas of land, which at the moment are protected, subject to mineral extraction. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure me that in fact I am wrong. However, the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill says:
"By virtue of section 265 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, other minerals and mineral substances may be the subject of such an Order only where a development plan provides that the land under which they are situate is to be used for the purpose of securing the winning and working of any minerals comprised therein. The purpose of this Bill is to place all minerals and mineral substances in the same category by extending the Court's powers under paragraph 1 of the 1966 Act and repealing section 265 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971".
I should like the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to answer this question. I have to declare an interest in a minor way in so far as I am a farmer and am also connected with land which has minerals upon it, but that is not the reason for my intervention. My question is whether, if this Bill goes through unamended, the criterion of "national interest" will still be brought to bear upon any High Court order with regard to minerals which at present are outside the list of nine.
2.55 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the demand for minerals and the pattern of mineral working in this country has changed considerably since the nine classes of minerals were first selected for preferential treatment in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1934. The Government therefore have no objection to the extension of the court's powers under paragraph 1 of the Table in Section 1 of the 1966 Act, as now proposed in this Bill. Nor do we oppose Section 265 of the Town and
842
Country Planning Act 1971 and Section 252 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, simply because neither of these sections would be required.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may I say that in deciding whether the grant of rights would be in the national interest the court is simply a substitute for the person or persons who cannot or will not grant the rights, and the decision operates solely between them and the applicant. The fact that the court is to be satisfied about the national interest may be regarded as the justification for the court overriding the rights of the private citizen. Planning considerations are an entirely separate matter and the grant of rights does not prejudice the exercise of the planning functions of either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State where he is involved.
I can also give an assurance that no mining operations would be allowed to proceed without planning permission. Operators of non-preferred minerals have been pressing for an amendment of the law in line with this Bill and their demand would appear to be not unreasonable. We do not expect a flood of applications. Under the 1966 Act there have been only six applications altogether. Three of those applications never went further than the Secretary of State. Of the other three, one was withdrawn, another was settled out of court and one has yet to be heard. Under this Act, therefore, the court has never made a substantive decision. The Government have no objection to the Bill but they do not regard it as a substitute for the thorough overhaul of mineral rights legislation that will be required in due course.
2.58 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for what he has said. I think that he has answered the point to the satisfaction of my noble friend. It is, of course, the case that Section 265, the section which is to be repealed, has never been activated and that it does not need to be activated if we have this Bill. That is the reason for repealing it.
So far as planning permission is concerned, this can be obtained either before or after the application to the court. The

843
point is that it has to be obtained, and all the usual safeguards there are invoked. I am informed, I hope correctly, that in cases of applications for development of minerals there is invariably a public inquiry. So far as the decision of the courts is concerned, it is clearly laid down in Section 3(1) of the 1966 Act as follows:
"No right shall be granted under section 1 of this Act unless the court is satisfied that the grant is expedient in the national interest."
Therefore I think that the case of the protection of the environment and the protection of agricultural interests is fully safeguarded here. All of these claims have to be evaluated in order to see where the balance of the national interest lies, but certainly any person who is concerned would have ample opportunity of making his case under this Bill, as he has done in the case of the nine minerals in the past. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with that answer.
It may be worth while to mention that in the structure plans which have now started to be submitted under the 1966 Act, one county has made it quite plain that the surrounding counties will be consulted throughout the structure plan period to ensure that decisions in respect of mineral applications are compatible with regional requirements and that one authority cannot, by an unduly restrictive policy, effectively export the demand for minerals to its neighbouring counties. It is also said that mineral operators are to be encouraged to work such deposits as quickly as possible and to be required to restore workings to a beneficial use by conditions attached to the planning permission. Finally, if I may quote from another county, it says that it is the county's policy—and I quote only the relevant words—
"that the workings are not injurious to amenity".
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TOWN AND COUNTRY AMENITIES BILL
3.0 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill entirely concerned with the environment, and with only one aspect of the environment—conservation. But this is an aspect which has been growing in public interest. There are several reasons for this interest. Partly it is because of the pace of development, which means that familiar buildings and landmarks suddenly disappear and are replaced by modern buildings which often seem out of scale with the rest of the townscape or landscape, and partly it is because we recognise the importance of our architectural heritage, not just as something that we enjoy to-day but as something that we wish to pass on to our children.
This interest in the subject of conservation is reflected in the legislation of past years, which in its turn reflects the change in the thinking of town and country planners. We are moving away from the concept of the listed building by itself—immensely valuable as this is—for this can mean that the building stands alone, beautiful but out of character with those that surround it, and we are moving towards the concept of a conservation area. A conservation area is a small area or group of buildings which, taken together and in relation to each other, make up an area of special architectural interest which ought to be conserved as a whole, and any additions or infilling must be in character with the rest of the area.
The Civic Amenities Act 1967 established conservation areas and was sponsored by my noble friend Lord Duncan Sandys, who we are delighted to see will be making his maiden speech on this Bill to-day. I know we shall all listen with great interest to what he has to say, not only because of his great work for conservation but also because he is President of the Civic Trust which has done so much to encourage the sponsors of this Bill. It is indeed a tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Duncan Sandys that there are now some 3,000 conservation areas in the country. I should also like to pay tribute to the

845
work of Mrs. Jennifer Jenkins who, besides being the wife of the present Home Secretary, is Secretary of the Ancient Monuments Society and has also done much to encourage the sponsors of this Bill.
This Bill has all-Party support. It was originally introduced by a private Member in another place, Sir John Rodgers, in the last Parliament when it had Government support. It has been sponsored in this Parliament by my honourable friend Mr. Michael Shersby, and, again, it has Government support. The Bill has been discussed with the local authority associations and I think it is fair to say that they support the principles of (he Bill, as does the Civic Trust, whose Secretary, Mr. Peter Robshaw, has acted as adviser not only on the drafting of the Bill but to all those who are seeking to promote it in Parliament. The Bill comes at an opportune time. The new local authorities came into being on April 1, and both the county councils and the district councils have concurrent powers for the designation of conservation areas.
Clause 1 of the Bill requires local planning authorities to consider within a given period the conservation areas already designated within their boundaries, and whether they should designate any more. Secondly, it empowers the Secretary of State to designate conservation areas himself, but only after consultation with the local planning authority concerned. It introduces a new principle in that it brings within a conservation area buildings which are not listed within the scope of local planning authorities. Thus local planning authorities can cither give or withhold consent for demolition on any building, whether or not it is listed, which is within a conservation area. At the same time, it contains powers to enable the Secretary of State to make directions excluding buildings from the scope of Clause 1, because although nearly all the buildings in a conservation area will be of architectural merit it is easy to see that some may not, and should rightly be excluded.
Clause 2 makes the same provisions for Scotland as for England and Wales. Clause 3 makes special provisions for controlling the display of advertisements in conservation areas, which will be an additional safeguard. May I add a plea
846
of my own on this clause? Although the Bill makes no mention of street furniture or traffic signs, I believe that these should be of a scale in keeping with the conservation area where they are placed. Clause 4 is concerned with the setting of a listed building. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, it is not enough simply to list a building if it is soon surrounded by totally incongruous buildings. The clause requires a local planning authority to advertise by public notice and in the Press, and to have the plans open for public inspection where, in the opinion of the local planning authority, any proposal would affect the setting of a listed building.
I turn now to Clauses 5 and 6, because both these clauses have caused concern to your Lordships. Clause 5 enables local authorities to recover the cost they incur in carrying out urgent works to unoccupied listed buildings. The Civic Amenities Act 1967 first gave local authorities power to do so; this Bill enables them to recover the cost. Perhaps I may add—because I hope it will help to alleviate the fears of some who are concerned about this clause—that it is not envisaged that such repairs would be other than emergency repairs to keep a building wind and weather proof. Also, it would be open to the owner, under subsection (2) of this clause, to have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State on the grounds that the demand was unreasonable, or that the works were unnecessary, or that there would be hardship to the owners.
Many representations have been made to me about this clause, including representations from the Scottish Landowners Federation and the County Landowners. I have considered this clause in the light of the fears that have been put to me about the additional costs that this could put on owners of listed buildings. Being a practically-minded person, I like to think of what is likely to happen. First, the local authority having tried to get the owner to do the necessary repairs and having failed to achieve this by negotiation, might decide to do them itself. Having taken this decision, the local authority would of course have to bear the cost in the first instance, and would then have to set about recovering the costs under Clause 5. Even then the owner can appeal, using one of the three grounds

847
that I have already indicated. He can appeal to the Secretary of State and can argue that the work was unnecessary, or that the demand being made was unreasonable or—even if the work was necessary and the demand was reasonable—that it would cause hardship.
I feel that if we consider the practicalities of the situation some of the fears will be alleviated. Furthermore, an undertaking was given in Committee in another place that the Department of the Environment would issue a Circular on the Bill, which among other things explained how the Department would expect local authorities to interpret this Part of the Bill. And, as is usual before issuing a Circular, its contents would be discussed with the local authorities themselves and with the amenity groups.
Clause 6 has also caused concern, particularly to the Churches. As the law stands, if an owner of a listed building fails to keep it in good repair and a local authority wants to acquire it in order to preserve it, the compensation must be assessed on the assumption that consent would be given for its demolition. This means, in fact, that a local authority can find itself paying the full redevelopment value as if the site were cleared of the listed building, when it wishes only to preserve the building. The compensation could, therefore, be more than would be paid on the open market where any potential buyer would take account of the fact that the building was listed. This clause removes the anomaly by amending Section 116 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Clause 7 requires any application by a local authority for listed building consent to demolish a building to be made to the Secretary of State, whether or not the local planning authority owns the building.
I turn now to Clauses 8 to 12. Clause 12 was in the original Bill, and on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council it makes it possible to pay a grant towards the upkeep of gardens or land of outstanding historic interest which are not adjacent to an historic building. This provision is new in conservation law, but it is important and is surely a protection for some of our fine gardens. Clauses 8 to 11 were added during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place and give added protection to trees in conservation
848
areas. This surely derives naturally from the great interest in trees following upon Tree Planting Year 1973.
My Lords, I have outlined, albeit briefly, the main purpose of the Bill and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships. I believe that there is great public interest to-day in conservation, as witness the rapid growth of amenity societies, and nowhere is the feeling greater than among the young. I believe that the Bill will go some way to meeting this interest and will be a Bill which future generations will be glad that we passed. Alas! at this time of year the Parliamentary timetable is tight, so I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and a speedy passage. I can conclude my remarks in no better way than by echoing the words of my honourable friend Mr. Michael Shersby when he introduced the Bill in another place and said that the Bill could be Parliament's contribution to European Architectural Heritage Year. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Young.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has explained very clearly the purpose of the Bill and I am happy to say that it is a measure which the Government are pleased to give support. In view of the great interest and the activities which he has undertaken, I think it is very fitting that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, should be making his maiden speech on it. I am sure that the whole House looks forward with keen anticipation to what he will have to say. The noble Baroness has explained the changes which the Bill proposes, particularly with regard to conservation areas. For my part I welcome the proposal to bring within control all demolition and conservation areas and to require local authorities to formulate and publicise schemes which will enhance the areas they have designated. This will ensure an increased role for local authorities and, we trust, encourage public participation in this increasingly important activity. While Central Government must play their part in providing effective legislation, it is at the level where local knowledge and expertise are readily available that effective conservation must begin. I

849
congratulate the noble Baroness on her sponsorship of the Bill and I commend it to your Lordships. I hope that it will have a very speedy passage.
3.14 p.m.
LORD DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, since this is the first occasion on which I have had the honour to address your Lordships' House I hope that I shall receive the indulgence which is customarily accorded to newcomers. I wish wholeheartedly to support this Bill which, among other things, Will help, as has been said, to strengthen the provision of the Civic Amenities Act 1967. Up till that time the laws relating to architectural conservation had concentrated on the protection of individual buildings of outstanding interest. As was said by my noble friend Lady Young—and I thank her for her generous remarks with regard to myself—the Act of 1967 introduced the wider concept of the conservation area. Since then, the principle of conserving entire areas has been adopted more and more widely throughout Europe. In fact, it has been made the central theme of the European Architectural Heritage Year of 1975.
There is no doubt that our laws on this subject are considerably more effective than those of most other countries. Nevertheless, experience has shown us certain weaknesses which the Bill seeks to rectify. As the law now stands, the responsibility for designating conservation areas rests with the local authorities concerned. On the whole, they have responded very well indeed. As has been said, over 3,000 conservation areas have already been designated, but these, one must say, are very unevenly spread and there are many notable and regrettable omissions. I therefore fully support the proposal to give to the Secretary of State the right to take the initiative himself and, where necessary, designate additional conservation areas, naturally after due consultation with the local authority.
As I have said, I warmly welcome the Bill as a whole, but there are two points on which I should like to comment. One of the most important provisions of the Bill is the one which makes it obligatory to obtain permission to demolish any building in a conservation area even if it is not a listed building. There are many buildings in conservation areas
850
which individually may be of no special interest, but which fit quite unobtrusively into their surroundings. The demolition of such a building and its replacement by some other building of incongruous design or excessive size can all too easily destroy the unity and character of the entire scene. Of course, the planning authority already has the power to refuse permission for the construction of a new building of which it does not approve, but that power is not as effective as it might seem. Once a building has been demolished the yawning gap which it leaves is in itself an eyesore. The site cannot therefore be allowed to remain indefinitely vacant. Consequently, the authority may sooner or later find itself obliged to give permission for the construction of some new building which shows scant respect for the character of its older neighbours. If, as the Bill provides, permission has to be obtained to demolish any building in a conservation area, the local authority will be in a position to ask the developer to give some indication of what he proposes to construct in its place. But—and I think this must be pointed out—there is nothing to prevent the developer from subsequently changing his mind. Therefore, I consider that, in a conservation area, permission to demolish a building should be granted only in conjunction with full planning consent for the new building which is to replace it.
The Bill also authorises the Secretary of State to make special regulations for the control of advertising in conservation areas, but this does not seem, so far as I can see, to add anything to his existing powers. Under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1971 he already has the power to make:
"different regulations in respect of different areas."
However, that Act provides for stricter regulations in what are called "areas of special control", which are defined as areas which
"require special protection on grounds of amenity".
That definition, surely, exactly describes the nature and purpose of a conservation area. In my opinion, it would therefore have been better and simpler to declare that all conservation areas will automatically be deemed to be areas of special

851
control, except in so far as they may be decontrolled by the Secretary of State.
My Lords, having said that, I recognise that the specific mention of conservation areas in the Bill, although it may not add any powers which do not already exist, will emphasise the duty of the Secretary of State to pay special attention to the control of advertising in these areas. That is particularly important since there is nothing which more completely destroys the dignity and quality of beautiful towns and villages than excessive and garish advertisements, by day or by night. Moreover, while most other improvements cost money, the restriction of advertising costs nothing at all. It requires only a little firmness and courage on the part of the Minister, who can, I am sure, count on the wholehearted support of Parliament and the public.
The Bill also gives much needed additional protection to listed buildings, trees and to historic gardens, which have received insufficient attention in previous legislation. The Bill, therefore, represents a further major step forward which will be widely welcomed. I have explained that there are two points on which the Bill does not go as far as I should like, but I hasten to say that I have no intention whatsoever of tabling any Amendments which would delay its progress. This Bill has been lost once already as a result of the Dissolution last February. Since there seems to be some possibility of another General Election before long, we must not risk losing the Bill a second time. Therefore, while warmly congratulating its sponsor, Mr. Michael Shersby, may I express the hope that your Lordships will make sure that this valuable Measure gets safely on to the Statute Book before the Recess.
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, it is my privilege to extend to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, the congratulations of the House on the notable maiden speech he has just delivered. He is no stranger to Parliamentary oratory, and in another place has delivered many notable speeches. It is good to know that we shall be able to look forward to the help of his eloquence and knowledge. There is no Bill upon which he could more suitably have made
852
his maiden speech, since everyone knows his great concern and expertise in matters of conservation. We extend to him our most warm congratulations, and look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
My Lords, I speak to-day in this debate in my capacity as Chairman of the Churches Main Committee, which is a body which represents all the main religious denominations in this country, so your Lordships will appreciate that I shall be speaking mainly about the position of the Churches in relation to this Bill. I should like to make it clear, however, that I am not seeking any special exemptions or concessions for the Churches. Most of what I have to say could equally be said by any owner of a listed building. The reason the Churches are especially concerned is because probably they own more listed buildings than any other group in this country.
The market value of a listed redundant church restricted to its existing use is probably less than any other comparable piece of property. These buildings usually represent about the only material asset which a Church may possess. If I may give your Lordships some figures, the Church of England owns at least 11,000 listed buildings, the Church of Wales some 600, the Baptist Union probably some 400, and the Methodist Church some 350. Of course, the Churches have not themselves bought or acquired these buildings. For the most part they have inherited from the past and often, especially as regards our Victorian heritage, they are a considerable embarrassment. May I remind your Lordships that these are for the most part owned and maintained by bodies or individuals with very few resources. In the case of the Church of England, ownership is vested in the incumbent of a parish. In the case of most of the other Christian denominations, ownership is usually vested in local trustees or stewards who represent the local congregation. In the Church of England, repairs and maintenance are the responsibility of the parochial church council, and in most of the other Churches, of the local congregation.
So long as a church remains in use for Church purposes those responsible struggle to maintain it despite all the difficulties of escalating costs, costs to which

853
must now be added 10 per cent. for V.A.T. Of course, these people do not receive a penny piece of State aid. Churches are not in business to preserve buildings, however desirable that may be, but to do the work of the Church. If a building ceases to be used for Church purposes, it is essential that the owners should be able to divest themselves as soon as possible of the burden of maintaining it. They need to realise the capital value which it represents, so that they can carry on the work of the Church elsewhere. Some Churches are already in great difficulty over the maintenance of redundant churches for which they are unfortunate enough to have responsibility. For instance, I am thinking of the case of the Brunswick Chapel in Leeds, a building for which the Methodist Church now has no use, which has cost hundreds of pounds in the last six years to supervise and protect, which needs thousands of pounds spending on it to repair the roof and the ceiling, and which has limited use to which it can be put by other purchasers because of its listing; also, it has a graveyard round it.
My Lords, it is for this reason that the Churches were at first much dismayed when they saw Clause 5 of the Bill and the power it gives to local authorities to charge owners with the cost of repairing unoccupied listed buildings. The noble Baroness said this would be only emergency work, but with a church, even putting up the scaffolding can be an extremely expensive operation. At any rate, at first sight this clause seemed to be a very serious threat. However, the Churches are now prepared to withdraw their opposition to this clause because assurances have been given by the Government that a circular will be sent to local authorities drawing their attention to the special problems which confront the Churches, and also because we now think it unlikely that in practice this clause will be used where churches are concerned. The local authority has to carry out the repairs in the first instance, and is unlikely to be very successful in recovering money from owners who have no money to provide. Therefore, we think and hope that this clause will remain a dead letter so far as the church buildings are concerned.
Clause 6, however, dealing as it does with capital values, is a different matter, and here I must ask your Lordships'
854
patience in drawing attention to the disastrous effect which listing can have on the value of a building and the problems which it can create for its owner. An example of the effect on values is shown by a recent court case in which the value of a listed church in Rochester which would cost £35,000 to replace was given as only £4,300, if the church was restricted to its existing use. In another current case, that of a listed Methodist church in Leeds, the value if it could be demolished and sold for redevelopment might be a quarter of a million pounds. The value restricted to current use is nominal, since the building is a liability rather than an asset. Thirdly, there is the case of a United Reformed church in Croydon which stands between two office blocks. Its value for existing use is no more than some £10,000, but if it could be demolished and the site redeveloped it might be worth some half million pounds.
Apart from its effect on values, listing can also have a serious effect on the arrangements for the future of the building and the site. May I quote another current case in Keighley, that of the Temple Street Methodist Church. Here practically all the arrangements had been completed for the church to be sold to the Keighley Corporation when it became known that the building had been listed. The Bradford Metropolitan District immediately intimated that they did not wish to purchase the building if there was a listing order on it. The result has been that instead of the Methodist Trustees being able to proceed with plans for the development of their church work elsewhere they now have on their hands a useless building, which may cost them just as much to maintain as those in the other cases I have mentioned. Your Lord-ships will, therefore, not be surprised that the Church authorities, and for all I know other owners, learn with great concern of the listing of their buildings, particularly as, may I remind your Lordships, an owner is not necessarily consulted about the listing of his building, has no appeal against it, and very often does not even become aware that his building has been listed until months after the event.
This brings me to Clause 6 of the Bill. Here again I must ask your Lordships to bear with me, in a particularly treacherous field, while I try to explain

855
as best I can what we interpret Clause 6 as attempting to do, and why the Churches feel very anxious about it. At first sight Clause 6 appears to mean that in assessing the compensation no regard is to be paid to any value which could be realised by demolishing the building, and so the compensation would be based on the value of the land for its existing use. What this may mean is illustrated by the hypothetical case of two buildings side by side in an area which has been compulsorily acquired for redevelopment. One building is listed and the other is not. Under Section 116 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as it stands at present, both owners get identical treatment. In the case of the unlisted building no listed building consent is needed for demolition, and so automatically the owner gets the development value of the site. In the case of the listed building the valuer is directed by Section 116 to assume that listed building consent will be forthcoming for demolition, and so the owner, too, gets his development value. Both owners are thus put on an equal footing. Indeed Section 116 seems to have been intended to ensure just that; namely, that the owner of a listed building receives the same terms as the owner of an unlisted building, a position which most people might regard as no more than just.
However, it seems that this situation is thought to have led to abuse, since it may enable the owner of a listed building to realise development value which he could have realised in no other way, because in practice he would never have obtained consent for the building to be demolished. There is thus an opportunity, it is argued, to buy a listed building and to unload it on to the acquiring authority for the full development value. I have reason to suppose that this was the abuse which the Promoters of this Bill were concerned to stop. But by making Clause 6 amend Section 116 of the 1971 Act, which applies over the whole field of compulsory acquisition, the Government have made it the opportunity, rightly or wrongly, to make a change in the code of compensation for compulsory acquisition. What the result appears to be is that instead of the two owners of the two buildings side by side receiving equal compensation the owner of the
856
listed building will now receive less, if this amendment goes through, because what he will receive is the market value of a listed building, and that, as I have shown, is less, and often considerably less, than the market value of an unlisted building.
We are assured by the Department that although the valuer will no longer be directed to assume that listed building consent will be given for the demolition of the building, he will be entitled to consider the prospects of obtaining that consent in the particular circumstances, and so the compensation received by the owner may not be as low as might have originally been feared. That may or may not be so. All I can say at present, without going into a very long and technical explanation, is that the lawyers and valuers who advise the Churches are not quite sure that this will in fact be the result in every case. Accordingly, had time permitted I would have wished to move an Amendment in Committee which would have confined the operation of Clause 6 to cases where a building is being listed for preservation, to the sort of cases which the Promoters of the Bill have in mind, and would have left unaffected the position where the listed building is acquired for demolition. Unfortunately, time does not so permit. I have also been told that the Government are not prepared to accept any Amendment, so that if one were successfully moved they woud not be prepared to give it time to be discussed in another place and the Bill would therefore be lost. In these circumstances, and rather than risk the loss of the Bill, most of which everyone would support, I shall not now be moving any Amendment, although I may have to ask the noble Lord who will be speaking on the Committee stage one or two questions designed to elucidate just what compensation a Church might expect in various circumstances if Clause 6 goes through in its present form.
In a debate about preservation, however, I could not let the opportunity pass of drawing attention publicly to the other side of the coin, and to the very real problems, financial and otherwise, which may be caused to those who are unfortunate enough, if you call it that, to own a building that is to be preserved. The Churches are perhaps more fortunate

857
than some other owners, in this respect, that if a church is a going concern and if its work is to be carried on somewhere else then it may be entitled to claim compensation based on equivalent reinstatement. But if a church is redundant, or if for one reason or another equivalent reinstatement is not appropriate, the Church may well be worse off than another owner of a listed building, since the latter, if it is a house, for example, usually has at least some existing use value as a house, whereas a church very often has no value apart from any development value that remains in the site. In that case the loss of value on listing can be enormous, especially as so many of the redundant Victorian churches I have mentioned are in High Streets and city centres where the rich merchants and industrialists who built them had their personal interests.
Clause 6 will make the matter worse by ensuring that owners receive only their low existing use value as listed buildings when they are compulsorily acquired for preservation. When the results of listing are pointed out to Ministers, they are apt to say that under the rules the consequences of planning decisions lie where they fall, and that owners must expect some limitation on their freedom in the interests of the community. The first argument might be a little more acceptable if listing followed consultation and could be the subject of appeal, but it cannot. As for the second argument, owners of listed buildings may well wonder why they are singled out for financial burdens from which those fortunate enough to own unlisted buildings are free.
However, there is nothing that we can do about it in the Bill, most of which, as I have said, the Churches would warmly support. I can only hope that the Minister, in the Circular to the local authorities that he has promised, will draw special attention to the difficulties of the Churches and urge that everything possible be done to alleviate them. I also hope that the Board of Inland Revenue, in their Circular to district valuers, will urge them, in assessing the compensation when listed buildings are compulsorily acquired, not to lay too much stress on the effect of Clause 6 in removing the automatic assumption as to demolition, but to accept the pos-
858
sibility that the building may otherwise have been demolished in every case in which that can reasonably be done.

CYPRUS
3.42 p.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Statement reads as follows:
"The House will understand that information about events in Cyprus is still coming in and what I say this afternoon is incomplete.
"The National Guard in Cyprus claiming to be intervening in order to stop fighting between Greeks in Cyprus have seized power. The Presidential Palace has been under attack and it is reported that President Makarios has been killed. If this report proves to be well founded the whole House will join me in expressing their very deep dismay and regret at the death in such circumstances of the President of a friendly country who was also the senior Commonwealth Head of State.
"The Treaty of Guarantee, which was signed by the Greek, Turkish and Cyprus Governments as well as by Her Majesty's Government, provides for the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of Cyprus. I have drawn the attention of the Greek and Turkish Governments to these undertakings and have urged the need for restraint on all sides. I have asked for their urgent views on the situation. I am also in touch with the Secretary General of the United Nations and with other interested Governments.
"There have been no reports of injury or loss to British subjects. The airport at Nicosia is closed and our High Commissioner has advised residents and holiday makers to stay at home until the position is clarified. I am reviewing arrangements for ensuring the safety of the British community and their evacuation should that prove necessary.
"I will keep the House informed of future developments."

859
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the House would wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, and I think we should all wish to associate ourselves with what he said about President Makarios. We must hope very much that these reports are not true. The consequences of this may be very grave indeed, and I do not think that it would be right at this stage, when we do not really know exactly what the situation is, to comment too fully about it. I think that the Government are quite right in reminding the Greek and Turkish Governments of our particular interest in this, not just as guarantors of the Treaty but by virtue of the fact that we have sovereign base areas in the Island of Cyprus, and there is of course a very great Western defence interest in the Island of Cyprus as a whole.
May I ask the noble Lord two questions? He may not be able to answer, and I shall quite understand. There was a report on the radio that the National Guard had declared an independent Hellenistic Republic. I wonder whether he could confirm whether or not that is so. It is very difficult to know exactly what that phrase means, but it is just as well that the Government should have reminded the two Governments concerned about the independence of Cyprus. Does the noble Lord know whether there has been any reaction from the Turkish Government? Secondly, may I ask him to confirm that the British troops under United Nations command are under the control of Her Majesty's Government, and cannot be committed in any situation without our consent?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I, from these Benches, endorse what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and express the hope that the first reports of President Makarios's death are not true. May I ask the noble Lord whether he has any information about the later report which said that the President might well be in the United Nations' headquarters? If so, is there not a radio link with the outside world through which this report could be either
860
confirmed or denied? May I also express the hope that this incident, or more than an incident, will not be allowed to escalate into something very serious indeed, and that if military action has to be taken from outside it will be under the auspices of an international organisation.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, may I, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, associate myself with those who have thanked the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. We also associate ourselves with what has been said about the grave news about the possible death of Archbishop Makarios. He is not only a great political leader, he is also a great religious leader and a much respected figure in the Orthodox Church, and we all offer our prayers that this sad news might in fact not be true.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I thank the two noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for what they have just said in regard to President Makarios. We all devoutly hope that these reports will not be confirmed. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm the report, I believe from Ankara, that he has found refuge with United Nations' Forces. We are in the process of endeavouring to confirm the truth of that report. Turning to Lord Carrington's point, may I say that I shall immediately, without waiting for the OFFICIAL REPORT, bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary what the noble Lord, and indeed the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party, have said about this matter as to the view that very grave consequences, and indeed escalation, are terribly possible in this situation, and the view that the 1960 Agreement and what it guarantees must be very firmly brought to the attention of the Greek and Turkish Governments. Our NATO interest in this has been expressed in this House, and I strongly concur that it is of very great importance.
As to the report that an independent Hellenistic Republic has been proclaimed, here again I cannot confirm whether or not this is true. We are trying to find out exactly what the position is, but I take on board the implication of any such development in regard

861
to the 1960 Agreement and, indeed, in a wider sense. The position as to British troops was raised by both noble Lords in different contexts. In regard to the British troops committed to the U.N. peace-keeping operation, of course they are subject to direction from this country. In regard to the British troops, forces and equipment in the sovereign base areas, I am advised that the position there is perfectly secure. I think that deals with the points raised by the two noble Lords. I repeat that I shall immediately report to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary what has been said in this House about this very difficult and highly dangerous situation.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, has it occurred to my noble friend and his right honourable friend that as both these countries, Turkey and Greece, are members of NATO, that in addition to referring the subject to the United Nations—not that I expect very much from that body in any circumstances—it is much more important to ask NATO to intervene in the matter because it has a pragmatic interest? Would it not be a frightful event if two NATO countries were engaged in conflict?—because it would render the whole of the NATO organisation into a farce.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree. I hope that in my replies to the two noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate I indicated that we regard NATO as being of extreme importance in relation to what my noble friend Lord Shinwell has said. As to the United Nations, it is important that we should be contacting the Secretary-General, which, in fact, my right honourable friend is now doing. The 1960 Treaty of Guarantee has of course, like similar treaties, been registered with the United Nations. The United Nations, on behalf of the comity of nations, has a clear duty to take stock of this situation and consider how it can help.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, could the noble Lord inform the House about the position of British dependants in Limassol where there have been reports of fighting? Having been a member of a delegation from your Lordships' House to visit Cyprus last year, I saw large numbers of dependants of British soldiers, airmen and civilians. I hope
862
that the position of their safety will be looked into with great care to make sure that if things come to the worst they could be got back to sovereign base areas to be looked after should the fighting spread.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my information has been that there has been no injury to British dependants or Servicemen. But I shall certainly ensure that the point of safety which the noble Earl has raised about Limassol is considered.
LORD DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, having regard to the grave consequences and repercussions, not only internal but international, which would result from an outbreak of civil war in Cyprus should it occur, will the Government, in their approach to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, examine the possibility of a speedy strengthening of the United Nations peace-keeping force before it is too late? Will they realise that although there are guarantees from Britain, Greece and Turkey—particularly with regard to the latter two—it is not easy for the Greek and Turk military forces to be effective in a situation of this kind?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would certainly expect that the consideration which the noble Lord has advanced will be very much in the forefront of our minds, indeed of the Secretary-General's mind and possibly the Security Council's, if it comes to it for consideration.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell the House that he has any information about the reaction of the Turkish community to these events?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no information on that point, but we are in continuous contact with sources which may shortly clarify a number of similar points.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that those of us who have met and know Archbishop Makarios will profoundly hope that the report that he is still alive is true? May I also ask the Minister—I may have misheard his report—whether he said that the National Guard had

863
intervened when there was conflict between Greeks? Or is it the case that the conflict was between Greeks and Turks? If it is the former, then is it the case that the National Guard is largely officered by Greeks? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government take the most urgent steps to raise this issue in the Security Council, so that the peace-keeping force of the United Nations may be strengthened?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the officership of Cypriot other ranks is part of the original agreements, not necessarily in the treaty. I should expect that this would be considered in the light of what has happened. I cannot go any further about that. As to the nature of the fighting which the National Guard in Cyprus claims to have intervened to stop, perhaps I should make it absolutely clear by reading the sentence referring to this point in the original Statement. I quote:
"The National Guard in Cyprus, claiming to be intervening in order to stop fighting between Greeks in Cyprus, have seized power."
That is the information we have, that they claim to have intervened to stop fighting between Greeks.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, in view of the grave possibility of friction—we hope it would not be more than that—or conflict between pro-Makarios Greek Cypriots and pro-Enosis Greek Cypriots, and also between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, apart from the expressed wish of your Lordships that every measure should be taken if necessary to increase the United Nations force, would it not be desirable also to consider the reinforcement of our military strength within the sovereign base areas, especially bearing in mind the fact that we may have to bring out British Service families and other civilians?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that every aspect of the military position will be looked at, including the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys.

TOWN AND COUNTRY AMENITIES BILL
Second Reading debate resumed.
3.58 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, to continue with the Town and Country Amenities Bill I wish first to add my congratulations to those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, on his excellent maiden speech. I know that all of us here look forward to many more valuable and similarly erudite contributions from him in the future.
I have to declare an interest as a member of that body mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the Scottish Landowners' Federation who, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, have some reservations about one or two aspects of the Bill. It seems to me the main point of the Bill is to conserve all the countryside and to preserve old, valuable and historic buildings. I believe that aim is to be encouraged and fostered; it is absolutely praiseworthy, as is any measure which seeks to make the lives of all of us more restful, peaceful and enjoyable. But can any measure be absolutely perfect to start with?
Many of us in Scotland and, I understand, some members of the Country Landowners' Association in England, have one point which we would seek to have further cleared up by the noble Baroness. It naturally concerns Clause 5 of the Bill dealing with listed buildings of architectural or historic interest. There is no doubt that these buildings give a great deal of pleasure to thousands of visitors, many of them from abroad. Indeed, many organisations do valuable service to the community by identifying these buildings and wherever possible assisting the owner to repair, renew or possibly even restore the whole building. The greatest among these bodies, certainly in Scotland, is the National Trust for Scotland; but there are countless other preservation societies which do valuable work in their own areas. For myself, I have noticed a remarkable upswing of interest in all kinds of buildings and houses. Some of these places could not be considered as being really classic, yet large numbers of people gain pleasure from walking around and learning about local history, or from studying particular

865
architecture. In many cases pleasure is mutual, both as regards the owners, who take great pride in showing their homes, and also as regards the general public.
But I think that all is not well when we take a close look at this Bill and at Clause 5, because certainly in one subsection it seeks to amend the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, which already gives local authorities power to survey and to carry out building repairs or restoration on any building which comes within the scope of the approved historical or achitectural category. It would appear that Clause 5 of this Bill is designed to amend Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act to empower local authorities to recover from the owner of the land the expenses of any work on repairs or restoration. The noble Baroness sought to allay some of our fears, but in my own mind I am just not so confident as she is of the kindness of many of the local authorities. As I am sure she is aware, we are getting our new local authorities in Scotland on May 1 (I think it is) next year, but many of these authorities will be of a considerable size, and some members of the Landowners' Federation and of other bodies are a little concerned that the responsibilities of the local authorities, and in particular of the preservation sections of those authorities, may be a trifle large, and that they may get a little out of touch with what is and what is not of architectural or historical importance in a particular locality. What seems to be of interest in, say, Edinburgh or in Glasgow may not really be of such interest in the locality itself, in that there may be other and more worth while buildings which could be better and more cheaply restored.
I feel that there is a danger that local authorities may seek to push ahead and to restore some buildings, and may thereby cause an owner a certain amount of financial embarrassment and difficulty. Certainly in this Bill, in Clause 5, we find subsection (6) of the new section, which gives the Secretary of State or the local authority the power to require the owner to pay the costs of all works of restoration or renewal. Apparently an owner may appeal within 28 days either that the amount of the cost is unreasonable or that he will suffer hardship in meeting the cost, or that some or even all of the work
866
is unnecessary for the preservation of the building.
I believe there is an appeal procedure, but the appeal must be directed to the Secretary of State who, certainly under the Scottish Act, has the power to initiate these repairs; so it does not seem that there is a very reasonable appeal machinery. Nevertheless, I wonder whether it is the intention of the noble Baroness or of the Government to allow local authorities to carry out work on listed monuments or buildings and to oblige the owner to meet these costs however large they might be, because I believe this is tantamount to an unlimited liability upon the owner; and, in spite of the noble Baroness's assurances that they will be just emergency repairs, for the owners of some land in Scotland these emergency repairs could be fairly hefty.
My Lords, if local authorities wish to carry out such preservation work, then I understand that they already have power to enter upon someone's land and to carry out the repairs, but that under the present regulations—I believe it is Section 97—the local authority is responsible for the cost; and I would think that it is not altogether reasonable that we should change now, at this stage, to requiring the owner to meet these costs. In the Bill there does not seem to be adequate criteria as to what is or what is not a building falling within the category of "historical or architectural interest". So far as I can see, the Bill gives local authorities the power to decide this, and I think this puts the landowner in a somewhat invidious position. In sub-section (8) of the new section in Clause 5 of the Bill there is this form of appeal, but only to the Secretary of State. It is he who has the power to initiate these works, and this, I feel, is not a totally satisfactory position. So far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, I think it is an admirable Bill because it seeks to maintain the preservation and the conservation of the country, and in every respect to make our lives better.
4.6 p.m.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I must add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, on his maiden speech, even though I feel I am far more of a maiden speaker than he is. Being a farmer, I presume I am part of the environmental

867
scene, and as such I offer him my thanks for the work he has done in the past, in particular with the Civic Amenities Act 1967. It is as a farmer that I look at this Bill, and I must therefore declare an interest in that way.
I regret to cast myself in the usual agricultural role of being a misery man. Obviously, I approve of this Bill in principle, although your Lordships have not convinced me that it is necessary to make it a duty rather than a power to review the setting up of these conservation areas. I understand we already have 3,000 of these conservation areas. Do we really need to speed up this process any more? Of course, anything that preserves the countryside must meet with my approval, but it is really a question of what we mean by the word "preserve". As we all know, the problem in conservation is one of balance, and I fear that this Bill could further restrict agricultural production. There is also a danger that this Bill will put more farmers in glass cases, and I am sure we do not want to do that. I am sure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London had enough experience in his last diocese of not wanting to do that.
My Lords, the problem, as I see it as a farmer, is quite simply this. There are many possible conservation areas that will be in the middle of villages. I think of my own village outside Oxford as a typical example. Many farm buildings are situated in the middle of villages—they are usually next to the church, which is the centre of the village—and they will therefore come into these conservation areas. If this happens it will delay planning, because you cannot knock a building down and put up another without permission. I know it will be said that it can be done in one application, but it means extra work, not only on the part of the owner but also on the part of the planning officer, to approve both.
But perhaps the main problem that I see is what happens when, in the centre of a farm, there is a building for which permission to abolish it is refused by the Secretary of State. First of all, who will keep it up? Practical enforcement, as we have already said and as the noble Baroness admits, is a far different question from what the law dictates. Will the
868
farmer be compensated should the retention of this building in the middle of his farm sterilise the rest of his buildings?—and it could. Finally—and this is really the point I am trying to make—unless somebody works at some time, nobody will get any of these social benefits at all. Particularly at this time I should like the Government to look at the problem of the odd person who wants to work and to give him some encouragement, and not to make these conservation areas two a penny. Making it a duty instead of a power to review may make this happen.
My Lords, in the last three days I have had three bits of paper on my desk which seem to me to be relevant to this point. They are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill, the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) (Amendment) Bill and the Town and Country Amenities Bill. All these Bills, so excellent in themselves, make it more difficult for the farmer to work, and unless he is allowed the right to use his buildings and to work, and to get on with his job, there will be no country-side worth the time of the townsman to come to look at. Not only will there be no countryside, but there will be no money to pay for these amenities which we all want. Taken to their illogical conclusions, these three Bills could appear to the farmer in the following light. He tries to start work in the morning but is stopped by the Safety Inspector because he has broken some guard; when he gets to his buildings they are all redundant due to a preservation order; and when he reaches his field he finds it is a mine or, worse still, a swimming pool and not returned to agricultural use despite a recommendation by the ADAS that it should be.
There is a hackneyed phrase "quality of life" which we hear a lot of to-day, and of course it is important, but I hope that the right reverend Prelate will confirm that there is also an old-fashioned principle regarding the sanctity of work. I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be able to assure me that the Bill will not be interpreted in such a manner as to make it more difficult for me as a farmer to work. Although I can see that I have not entirely convinced your Lordships, and though I am about to run off quickly before your Lordships murder me, I hope you will agree that before an agricultural area is scheduled,

869
particularly if that area contains farm buildings, the Ministry of Agriculture should be asked to advise the planning authority. I should like this to be a statutory power of the Ministry of Agriculture, but I fear that even if I give my best smile to the noble Baroness I may not obtain your Lordships' approval.
4.13 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene very briefly before the noble Baroness replies, although I have not put down my name. I have two objects for doing so. First, I should like to add my congratulations to those which have been addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, on this very appropriate occasion for his maiden speech. I suppose that nobody living has done more for the preservation of the buildings and the urban environment of this country than has the noble Lord, and I should like to add my acknowledgment and congratulations to those which have been expressed. My second reason for rising is that as I listened to the debate I began to be filled with some anxiety as to the situation which we have got ourselves into, because it was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, that, although he might have some reservations about whether some parts of the Bill were really quite right, he would not on any account move any Amendments in Committee because that would endanger the Bill as a whole.
Then we heard the reservations and alarm—if that is not putting it too strongly—of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and it seemed to me that he had every cause for concern as to whether Clause 6 had serious implications for churches and, indeed, for listed buildings generally. Whether the difficulties that the provision raises can be met by some Circular or administrative action by the Secretary of State, I am very doubtful. Then we heard the reservations and anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, about Clause 5 and I should like to say something more about that in a moment. Finally, we heard the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, about the agricultural implications of the Bill. Yet we appeared to be told by the right reverend Prelate that if we moved a single Amendment and carried a single Amendment at any stage of the Bill,
870
particularly in Committee—I do not know when that will be, but I suppose that it will be very soon—it would mean the end of the Bill.
Are we to be confronted with this challenge and threat not only with the present Bill, but with all the other Bills which are to come up to us before the Recess? I have always understood that the function of this House was to revise in Committee and that we were to apply our minds to the detail of matters. But if this is to happen that function will be abrogated and we shall be performing no useful service. I suggest that this is really much more a matter for the Government than for the noble Baroness. But I should like to know whether it is a fact that we have to pass the Bill just as it stands, and that if we seek to improve or amend it that means that we are killing it, because I do not think that that is a position into which this House ought to be put. I do not know how it can be overcome but, if it be the fact that there are faults in the Bill—though I am generally sympathetic to it—they ought surely to be put right and ought to be properly attended to in this House.
My Lords, I should like to make one comment on Clause 5, which is the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred. Section 101 of the Act of 1971 provided that in the case of unoccupied listed buildings a local authority, if it thought that a building was in urgent need of repair, could serve on the owner a seven-day notice of its intention to go in and do repairs—and there the section ended. What the new Clause 5 does is to amend Section 101 of the 1971 Act. t retains the power of the local authority in the case of an unoccupied listed building to give seven-days' notice to the owner of its intention to move in and carry out the urgent repairs itself, but it then goes on to extend the powers of the local authority and authorises the local authority or the Secretary of State to charge the owner the cost of the work which has been done, and gives the owner a right of appeal to the Secretary of State upon certain limited grounds to escape the obligation of paying for those repairs.
I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment how this will operate in practice. Let us suppose that the local authority thinks that there is a need for urgent repair to an unoccupied listed

871
building. It has only to give seven days' notice of its intention to carry out the work, but if, as may be possible, the owner is away and never receives the notice and, meanwhile, the local authority moves in and starts upon the repairs, they may be very substantial indeed, but the owner will have had no opportunity of making representations, or of saying that he will do the work himself. He will have had no opportunity for anything of that kind. Then, some time later, he will receive a notice from the local authority saying, "This is the bill and if you do not like it you can appeal to the Secretary of State on the grounds of hardship, or because the cost is too much, or because it is not reasonable."
My Lords, this may appear to be a trifling matter, but I suggest that it is important, because if it is intended to make the owners of listed buildings liable to problems and difficulties of this kind, will not the owners of buildings which it is proposed to list take steps in the future to try to resist the listing of their buildings owing to the fact that as soon as the building is listed by the Secretary of State the owner will immediately become liable to this procedure under Clause 5? It would be very simple, I believe, to put this right. All that has to be done is to provide in Clause 5 that the notice to be given by the local authority shall be greater than seven days—perhaps a month or two months. What harm would be done? That might go a long way to meeting the problem.
But we are being told here to-day, "Oh, no! You cannot do that. You cannot pass a perfectly simply and reasonable Amendment of that kind which would meet the difficulties that I have been talking about. Also, you cannot pass any Amendment to meet the much graver difficulties about which the right reverend Prelate was speaking, because otherwise you will kill the Bill." It is entirely wrong that we should be put in this position and I should like to know from the Government what proposal they have to make to get us out of this difficulty.
4.20 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-
872
Sandys, whom I should like to congratulate on his maiden speech and say how very nice it is that we have another expert on the environment to take part in these debates in this House. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his help and for the help of officials from the Department of the Environment.
As I thought, the difficulties in this debate have centred around Clauses 5 and 6 and I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London not only for accepting the Government's assurances on Clause 5 that they will try to meet, in a circular so far as they can, the fears expressed by the Churches, but also that he has withdrawn his Amendments on Clause 6. I do not know that I can again allay his fears, because he has identified the anomaly in the present law that this Bill seeks to remove. But it is true that valuers must consider each case on its merits and the Churches must not assume that consent for demolition will never be given. It would be as wrong to assume that as to assume that it would always be given.
On the point raised on Clause 5 by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, may I say that this clause is designed particularly to meet the case (which is very familiar to anybody who has served on a planning committee) of a listed building which is allowed to deteriorate year by year and appears to be nobody's responsibility at all. The present law, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has quite rightly said, allows a local authority to move in and carry out emergency repairs. The provision under Clause 5 would allow them to charge the owner for those emergency repairs. But although he has instanced how this might well work, it seems to me that it is unlikely that emergency repairs would be required, unless something had happened in a thunder storm, and that the building would have deteriorated over a prolonged period of time to have reached that stage, in the course of which it would have been perfectly possible for there to have been negotiations between the local authority and the owner.
I can only reiterate what I said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill; that is, that I believe local authorities would be very reluctant to use this power

873
because in the first instance they would have to bear the costs and then, having borne the costs, they would have to try to get them out of the owner who, as the Bill stands, has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State on these three grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, raised a point about agriculture, but so far as farm buildings are concerned either they are already in an existing conservation area, in which case they would be affected only if they are not listed buildings, or they might be in a proposed conservation area, in which case they would be included only after discussion with all the residents because a local authority is most unlikely to designate a conservation area without discussion with all those concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has expressed anxieties about the Bill. It is true that if an Amendment is carried there is no time for the Government to take the Bill back to another place. I can only say that I believe the situation to arise out of the unusualness of the present political and Parliamentary situation. I believe we should all like more time, but the facts of life at this moment are against us and because everybody who has spoken has said that they support the principle of this Bill, and because it is something which I believe meets the wish of many members of the public, I hope that despite any anxieties that may have been expressed the House will give it a Second Reading and a swift passage on to the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL
4.26 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I begin by apologising to those who I know rearranged their engagements in order to be present at the Second Reading a week ago last Friday.
874
Then, for that Friday there was some alteration in business and the Second Reading was accordingly to be taken last Friday. I am sorry that again, on a second occasion, those noble Lords had to rearrange all their engagements. I understand that Fridays would not have been convenient days for the noble and learned Lords of Appeal to attend. I am sorry for those who in the circumstances would wish to have heard the Second Reading but cannot be here to-day.
I apprehend that I owe some duty to start, as it were, at the beginning. Although most of your Lordships are familiar with this Bill, because in sub-stance it is the same as the Bill that we considered eighteen months ago, of course a number of your Lordships who are Members of your Lordships' House now were not here then. So may I first very briefly explain how the Bill arose. In December 1970 the Howard League for Penal Reform, Justice and NACRO appointed a Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman, to look at the problem of old convictions. We were not concerned, we felt, with anyone who was in the nature of a real professional criminal, anyone who had ever had a sentence of more than two years; nor were we dealing with those who come out of prison, try to get a job, the police then come round and tell their employers about their conviction so they give the job up and go in and out of prison. We were dealing only with those who, having committed an indictable or other serious offence, usually in adolescence, then settle down, get a job, marry and do not offend again for a considerable time. So that they are people who have done everything they can to rehabilitate themselves. There are great difficuties—and here again I shall not go into any details—in getting employment; in obtaining any insurance; difficulties in being involved in any way in court proceedings—because our law provides that in any case, whether criminal or civil, any witness can always be asked about any convictions he has had at any time in his life, however irrelevant; and particular difficulties in the magistrates' courts where those convicted of a mere traffic offence may have read out a previous conviction for in-decent exposure 15 or 20 years before, and of course it is all reported in the local papers.

875
This Committee was not a committee of "do-gooders". It consisted of three justices of the peace, two London serving stipendiary magistrates, a deputy Crown Court Judge, two barristers and a solicitor, and the Chairman of the London Sessions also attended all our meetings. We did not make any announcement inviting people formally to give evidence before us. It is probably a good thing that we did not because it would not have done any good, I imagine. At pre-sent I am the Chairman of a Committee appointed by the Government to overhaul the security laws of Northern Ireland and we wished everybody to know that anyody who had any observations to make we should welcome. While that notice was published in the newspapers in Northern Ireland, I do not think a single English newspaper published it at all. What we did was to discuss things quite informally with those interests we thought should be consulted and indeed those we wished to consult. I kept in touch throughout with the noble and learned Lord the then Lord Chief Justice, and we also saw representatives of the Home Office and of chief constables, insurance interests, the Confederation of British Industries and so on. The report of this Committee is called Living it Down. It is in the Printed Paper Office, but if any noble Lord wishes to see it he will have to ask for it because, not being a Government Paper, it has to be kept under the counter!
It is entirely my fault, as Chairman of that Committee, that it was not until about halfway through our proceedings that somebody said, "I wonder how many people we are dealing with?" There was no answer to that question, but one of our members was a considerable authority on criminal statistics and at our next committee meeting he reported that although he had tried he had been unable to find out. So we asked the Home Office and they did not know, but they said, "It is an interesting point: what exactly do you want to know?" We said: "We want to know how many people there are who, having committed an indictable or other serious offence, then go straight for four or five years." They promised to have a special survey done. Naturally, it must be more than 10 years ago now. They chose what they said was an average
876
year and went into all the details of 4,000 men, which they said represented an adequate sample. They came back at the end of it and said, "We have found that nine out of ten who go straight for 5 years also go straight for 10 years, and that the number of people concerned is about a million, extrapolating these figures in respect of the whole of England and Wales. It is probably on the high side, because our sample contained only men and there is less reconviction among women. In addition, the prospect of anybody who has gone straight for 10 years committing a further indictable or other serious offence is slightly less than the prospect of somebody doing so who has never been convicted of anything before." So these are really our best citizens because they have learnt their lesson.
The question is whether, in these circumstances, it is not really in the interests of society, when men have done everything they conceivably can to rehabilitate themselves and when society is entitled to conclude, from the length of time which has elapsed, that they really are rehabilitated people, that they should be treated as such by society? It gives such people every incentive to continue to lead an honest life. One would have thought that this proposition would appeal to everybody, and I think as a whole it does—although there has been something of a Press campaign recently by authors, publishers and their lawyers. On the other side stand over a million families who are not people who can afford to write letters to The Times.
We found that we were the only country which was a member of the Council of Europe without a rehabilitation law. If you are to have a rehabilitation law preventing, with certain exceptions, the re-publication of old convictions, there are only four ways in which this object can be achieved. In, I think, only one country there is a pardons board, and those who consider themselves rehabilitated can apply to the pardons board. This is a public application and the police then go to see the person's employers or neighbours to ask whether they think that person is rehabilitated. We did not think that could possibly work: it is, in fact, the last kind of application which such people would be likely to make.

877
Secondly, you can tear up the criminal record; and this is something which occurs in a number of countries. We were against that for two reasons: first, because the police have the responsibility for detecting crime and ought really to be entitled to know who has done what; and, secondly (though this was a lesser reason), criminological research is becoming increasingly important. We have the Criminological Institute at Cambridge and also the Home Office Research Unit; and if the basic facts are falsified the task of those engaged in criminological research would become virtually impossible. Therefore, nobody favoured that method.
The third way is to make it a criminal offence to publish a rehabilitated conviction. We were against that because it was too easy to make more and more criminal offences, and that it would not be effective because it is too heavy a weapon. All experience shows that if you try to use too heavy a weapon the thing simply does not work. Of course, it is a criminal libel which can only be defended on the grounds that what was said was true and that it was in the public interest that it should be published. I do not know when we last had a criminal libel case. Judges do not like them, juries do not like them, and over the years they have been very few. So we were against trying to deal with this matter in the field of the criminal law and, therefore, it can only be dealt with in the field of civil law. Our proposal is basically that a criminal conviction is itself a creation of the law, that the law itself can and should put a term to that which it has created, so that after a certain length of time a conviction may be regarded as spent and that thereafter, with certain exceptions, no evidence to prove a spent conviction should be admissible. One effect of that could be the risk of somebody publishing a spent conviction having to pay damages in an action of defamation.
Broadly speaking, I think this has been very much misrepresented. It has been stated as if it were a self-evident truth that everybody must always tell the truth. This is not argued but stated as a self-evident proposition. It is not one which will stand a moment's examination. There are many occasions on which no Christian would dream of telling the truth, and we can all think of examples
878
where any Christian would tell a lie. The point was made in one of the many letters in support of the Bill which have been sent to The Times, none of which have been published except a long one from me this morning. The author said:
"By Christian tradition there are three divine attributes—love, truth and justice. They complement each other and if one is exalted to the exclusion of the others the result is always undesirable and often positively evil. Further, the right to tell the truth and to expect others to tell the truth cannot be separated, any more than any other right, from its corresponding duties and restraints."
Of course, there are many practical examples in which the law has recognised that there are occasions when you are not only bound to tell the truth but you are bound not to tell the truth. They are all cases based on the fact that the public interest must come first and the cause of justice is part of the public interest. I suppose that all over the country many times a week counsel get up and object to certain evidence being given. They are not objecting that the evidence is not true: they are saying that it is contrary to the law of evidence that it should be admitted. Many years ago, on circuit, a man went into the witness box and said: "I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, except so far as I am prevented from telling the truth by the law of evidence." He had a point; if I remember rightly, it was hearsay. What he wanted to say was true. He was convinced that if he said it, it would win the case, but he was told by his solicitor: "You cannot say that. That is the truth you may not speak. That is not evidence." Ultimately, the judge made him take the Oath in the ordinary form.
In the case of a man charged with shop lifting, any layman would think the most relevant fact of the case is that he has already been convicted of shop lifting 16 times before. The law says that that is a truth which may not be told to the jury, not because it is not relevant, but because it is too relevant. It is felt that it would be too prejudicial. The jury would pay insufficient attention to what they have to decide, which is whether it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the offence this time. There are many cases in law in which the law says: "That is true; it may be relevant, but it is one you cannot tell. If you get

879
up and say that to the jury you are in grave danger of being sent to prison.
The Official Secrets Act is a simple example of an Act which makes it a very serious criminal offence to reveal the true contents of a document. What is in a document must not be published. It is perfectly true, but it would be contrary to the security interests of the country for you to publish it. There are legal fictions, always for a good reason. As a distinguished Lord Justice said:
"When something is deemed to have been done which was not in fact in truth done, it is a legal fiction."
There are many Acts which say that A must be treated as if it were B. This does not change A to B; A is still A, and B is still B. That which is not true is ordered by the law to be assumed. A tenant cannot dispute the validity of his landlord's title; a licensee cannot dispute the validity of the patent, though what he wants to say may be true.
Your Lordships will remember a time when one or two Sunday newspapers increased their circulation primarily by reporting in great detail on the more sordid details of divorce and nullity cases—they were particularly fond of nullity cases. Then Parliament intervened and said: "It is not in the public interest that these private details between husband and wife, although heard in open court, should be reported, and that is a truth which you may not tell anyone." A committee of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker, was Chairman considered the problem caused by the fact that in indictable proceedings, when the committal takes place before the magistrates, it is usual for the whole of the evidence of the prosecution to be called, but none of the evidence for the defence, which is reserved. That meant that a man who had read all about the details of a sensational case in a newspaper and had said to his wife, "It is clear that he is as guilty as Hell", if he found himself on a jury, would find it difficult to serve with an impartial mind. Except with the consent of the accused, those are also truths which can no longer be published.
What is the alternative to the method which we have suggested, which is, broadly speaking, for the law to declare that after a certain lapse of time certain convictions are to be treated in law as
880
spent, and thereafter, subject to a number of exceptions, proof of them will no longer be admissible in evidence? In the long discussions which have taken place on this Bill, everybody has agreed that it is desirable that the objects of the Bill should be achieved, some having doubts in particular about the defamation clause which, in a sense, is the "guts" of the Bill. Nobody has suggested a better method, except Mr. Bernard Levin, who says it ought to have been done by an anti-discrimination law. I must assume that Mr. Levin knew what he meant by that; I can only say that I have not the foggiest idea.
This applies not only in the Council of Europe. In Germany—we set out some particulars of this in the Appendix to Living it Down—access to the record is first restricted after five years for lesser cases, and 10 years for others. The entry is cancelled after 10 years. Once the entry is cancelled the person in general is entitled to state—even in court—that he has no convictions. Rehabilitation in France can take place, according to sentence, after between five and twenty years and wipes out the conviction. The conviction is not mentioned in extracts in the criminal records, and a legal fiction, fiction légal, is created that the reinstated person has not been convicted. I suppose Mr. Levin would say that that shows what a bad effect co-ordinating with the Common Market countries may have.
This Bill has been extensively considered. The Second Reading 18 months ago occupied 84 columns of Hansard. We did a great deal of work in considering whether (his was the right method, and the House decided that it was. I mention this partly because a leading article in that highly respectable paper the Sunday Times said it was surprising that these proceedings had received so little scrutiny. On the Committee stage there were 26 Amendments, of which four were withdrawn and 22 accepted. On the Report stage of the Bill there were a further 31 Amendments. Literally, as those present will remember, on Committee stage and Report stage we went through every clause, line by line, to try to improve the Bill, being agreed on its principle. On the Report stage there were a further 12 Amendments. In all, 66 Amendments were made to this Bill in this House without one Division. This

881
was simply because, being agreed on the principle, we all joined together to make the Bill (which, after all had not had the advantage of being drafted by a Parliamentary draftsman) as satisfactory as we could make it.
When the Bill was sent to the Commons somebody said, "Object!", and that was the end of it for that Session. In the next Session, a Labour Member of Parliament, who had drawn a good place in the ballot, introduced it as a Private Member's Bill there. The Minister of State in Mr. Heath's Government was careful to explain to the House the principle of the Bill—that is to say, in substance, the defamation clause, and any objections which had been voiced to it. There were not many, but it may be surprising now to remember that the Bill that year was supported by leading articles in the Guardian, Mail, Mirror, Evening Standard, New Law Journal and Solicitors' Journal. The only critical article was one in the Justice of the Peace. The Minister referred to what had just been received by the Government, the Interim Report of the Committee on Defamation, and the Minister, Mr. Mark Carlisle, said:
"The issue that must be decided by the House to-day is whether the means proposed in the Bill to achieve its desirable end are an acceptable method of dealing with the problem. The approach of the Bill received almost universal acceptance in another place, and there is no doubt that it has also had general acceptance outside the House, apart from the strong attack on it in Justice of the Peace. There is no doubt either, in view of the list of backers of the Bill, that it has weighty support from both sides of the House. All those who have contributed to this short debate have supported it.
The Government support the intention of the Bill. We believe that it is important that the issue of principle should be fairly and fully stated to the House. If that issue is acceptable to the House, the Government will not wish to attempt to prevent further progress on the Bill or advise the House to reject it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 25/1/74; col. 2125.]
He said later—this was on January 25 of this year, at column 2127:
"The critics of the Bill say, as was said by the hon. Member for Gorton, that it is establishing a group of people about whom the truth cannot be told. It seems to me that the issue of principle which this House has to decide is whether that is an acceptable way of approaching the problem. The Government do not wish in any wav to persuade the House not to find that acceptable. We merely want hon. Members to realise the issues that they face."
882
The other place faced that issue and gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. It was sent to a Standing Committee and, in accordance with precedent in the other place where a Private Member's Bill receives a Second Reading, it would no doubt have been accorded a parliamentary but for the fact that then came the General Election.
In this Session, and in a new Parliament, the matter was dealt with by a Conservative Member of the other place, Mr. Piers Dixon—and I am grateful both to Mr. Kenneth Marks and to him for having taken the Bill on in the other place. Again, the Minister of State in the present Government stated the issue to the House. He said, on May 3, at column 1546:
"The Government accept fully the principle contained within the Bill. We were ourselves considering whether we should introduce a Government Bill to this effect."
Then he referred to the Faulks Committee and said:
"Mr. Justice Faulks and his committee recommended that for that reason, and apart from some technical matters that we shall no doubt discuss in Committee, the clause on defamation should be omitted. If that were so the Bill would be without meaning."
He ended by saying:
"We must consider the issue of principle. Is it right that in this community what has been true in the sense that a man has been convicted should be regarded for all practical purposes as untrue? I think that that is right."—[Col. 1547.)
For a second time, and in a new Parliament, the elected Chamber accepted the principle and gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. There was a Division on the defamation clause in Committee in the other place by somebody who said he had opposed it in principle, but he was the only person to vote for his own Amendment. At that stage the Government, of course, gave the Private Member concerned the services of a Parliamentary draftsman. The whole Bill was redrafted and indeed the Minister of State himself moved all the new clauses.
This is why I find it a little surprising to be told by such a reputable paper that this question has had no scrutiny. I should have thought that it is probably unparalleled that any Bill in what used to be eight clauses, but which for reasons concerned purely with arrangement is now in 11, has ever been so much

883
scrutinised in the two Houses. It must indeed be unusual, if not unique, for a Bill to come to this House having already passed through all its stages in this House and twice having had a Second Reading in the elected Chamber. Many drafting Amendments have been made in the other place, but the formal and conceptual structure of the Bill which passed your Lordships' House has been preserved, and practically there have been only two major Amendments. The first, for the benefit of the Press and others, which they had clamoured for, was a "public interest" clause. If I had been a Member of the other place I do not think I should have opposed that. The effect of that is that, disregarding all the provisions of the Bill, one can always rake up anybody's rehabilitated convictions if it is true and if the publication of that truth is in the public interest; one cannot do so if it is against the public interest. On the face of it that has obvious merits. There is—is there not?—a difference between what I think is now called investigative journalism, when people want to say that a man who is carrying on a business is carrying on a fraudulent business, and muck-raking. It seems sense to say that one is in the public interest and the other is not.
Of course, about this there is nothing original of any kind at all. This is the law in many countries. About the freest Press in the world is the Swiss Press, which is notoriously outspoken. The law of defamation in Switzerland has always been that it is a complete answer to any action of defamation to prove that what one said was true and that the publication of that truth was in the public interest. The Australians have taken their law from us, including our defamation law, but most of them thought that one thing about it was wrong. They said: "Truth ought not always to be an answer if it is against the public interest that the truth should be published." There are many cases of this in our report. Living it Down. It was precisely because all three societies (these were not people who can write to The Times) had so many cases of this kind in their files that the Committee was appointed.
I will take a simple case of someone who happens to be a woman I know. When she was 18 she was convicted of soliciting. She then fell in love; mar-
884
ried; was a good wife, a good mother, and a good grandmother. She is now 68. Her family knows nothing about this very discreditable episode in her past. But all her life she has known that if for any reason she became newsworthy, if any newspaper because it helped them to sell the paper published this old conviction, there was nothing she could do because the truth is a complete answer. At present under our law, however contrary to the public interest it may be that the truth should be published, truth is a complete answer.
Australia thought that this cannot be right—or many States did, including New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and, I believe, Western Australia. Their law is that it is a complete answer to any action of defamation if one proves that what one said was true and that the publication was in the public interest. Mr. Justice Evatt, as he then was, in the High Court in Australia said in a case:
"If AB was convicted years ago of an offence it can seldom be for the public benefit to resurrect the scandal, for AB may be living a private life and one of complete rectitude. However, in special circumstances it may be for the public benefit to publish such a statement, e.g., if at the time of the publication AB has become a candidate for public election."
I suppose Mr. Levin would say it only shows what these foreigners get up to But I submit it is in fact a sensible distinction. And I myself would not have opposed the victory won by the Press in the other place in that the Bill now provides for a "public interest" defence.
The only other major change was this. The courts have now been left out of the Bill altogether. I believe this was largely due to a misunderstanding by the Magistrates' Association. We had provided in our report that if an apparently rehabilitated character was convicted on indictment before a Crown Court all his past convictions should become public, but not if he was convicted in a magistrates' court. The magistrates regarded this as a great slight upon magistrates. They said, "Judges are being trusted with information with which they do not trust us". There is a complete misunderstanding.
The reason why we thought that in the Crown Court his record should be re-opened was that if anybody has done something so serious as to be convicted on indictment in a Crown Court—well,

885
bad luck, but he is not, after all, a rehabilitated person. This Bill seeks to protect only those who really are rehabilitated people. On the other hand, so far as the magistrates' court is concerned we did not think that because such a man parked his car in the wrong place this should lead to all his previous convictions being read out in the magistrates' court. We thought that it was difficult to draw a line between different cases in the magistrates' court. Therefore we thought that it would be right that it should have that effect in the Crown Court but not the magistrates' court. However, as I have said, that was misunderstood.
What happened in Committee in the other place was that in order to try to meet this objection in the magistrates' court, a compromise Amendment was moved to provide that cases tried by magistrates which were indictable offences should follow the effect of a conviction in the High Court but not the summary ones. That Amendment was carried against the advice of the Government. I understand that the reason the Government advised against it was because they agreed with our Committee: that it is very difficult to draw a line between different kinds of offences in the magistrates' court. When that was carried, therefore, against the Government in Committee, on Report the Government put down an Amendment which was carried and completely removed from the Act all the provisions about what might or might not be done in court in the way of previous convictions. Subject to this, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, whom we are all glad to see, had already agreed that he would deal with it by means of a practice direction. I understand that the Home Office will do the same in relation to the magistrates' courts. Those are the only major Amendments which were made, compared with the Bill as it was in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I must refer to some extent to the clauses of the Bill. May I mention briefly the safeguards. Under Clause 4(3) the Secretary of State can exclude by Order the application of the preceding subsections in relation to what questions can be asked in court in appropriate cases. Clause 5(1) of the Bill does not apply to anybody who has had a sentence of more
886
than 30 months. Under Clause 5(11) the Secretary of State can alter both the rehabilitation periods and the age at which a rehabilitation period will be half the normal. At present this is applicable only to those who are convicted at the age of 16 or younger. Under Clause 7(2), a number of matters are outside the Bill. The courts are now outside the Bill; the service of disciplinary proceedings is outside the Bill; and children are entirely outside the Bill. I have written altogether three letters to The Times and in another letter which has not been published I referred to one which had been written by a distinguished member of the Bar who said that the Bill would prevent the criminal records of prospective stepfathers and foster parents from being investigated, thus putting helpless children at risk, and who drew the conclusion that the sponsors of the Bill have not thought the matter through carefully enough. As T said in that letter which I wrote to The Times but which has not been published, if the premise were right the conclusion would certainly follow. In fact, however, Clause 7(2)(c) of the Bill specifically allows evidence of previous convictions and their surrounding circumstances to be given, and I quoted from the Bill:
"(c) in any proceedings relating to adoption or to the guardianship, wardship, marriage custody, care or control of, or access to, any minor, or to the provision by any person of accommodation, care or schooling for minors;".
A similar provision has been in the Bill for well over a year, and therefore it is plain that Mr. Field Fisher cannot have taken the trouble to read it before launching a public attack upon it.
My Lords, anything can, of course, be done under Clause 7(2)(f) with the consent of the rehabilitated person. Clause 7, subsections (3) to (5), refer to various civil proceedings which will be exceptional, and under the following sub-section, subsection (6), the Secretary of State can extend these forms of proceedings to other proceedings. Clause 8 provides for further exclusions to subsection (2)—publications made before the conviction was spent. Subsections (4) and (5) and the following subsections deal with the normal defences of fair comment, absolute privilege and qualified privilege. I think that the position about giving references has been much misrepresented.

887
The Confederation of British Industry set up a special six-man committee to go into every aspect of the Bill. Of course they are concerned for employers. I attended one of their meetings with another member of the Committee, as a result of which they were completely satisfied. Under the Bill as it stands, any employer who in any circumstances gives a reference is completely protected if he honestly believed what he said to be true. That is all he has to prove. There is a further defence of innocent dissemination. Subsection (7) deals with reports and sub-section (9) with unauthorised disclosure.
My Lords, there is no other way. Nobody else has suggested another way. There may always be amendments on points of detail. If anybody considers, for example, that librarians are not properly protected, obviously they can say so. But that is not the case. I mentioned that I had kept in touch with the then noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice, and on a previous occasion I read to your Lordships the letter which he wrote to me saying that he thought this is a much better way of dealing with this problem than the way it is dealt with in any other country because it is in accordance with our traditions, and that while he might have reservations on detail he supported the Bill in principle. This principle has been fully discussed and accepted both in this House and in two Parliaments by the elected Chamber. I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and that it may soon be law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Gardiner.)
5.8 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House on a Bill which, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, has already been, although in a slightly different form, before this House and another place on previous occasions. This House is familiar with the legislation on this subject from the Bill of the same title which my noble and learned friend himself presented in the last Parliament. As he has indicated, this Bill differs in a number of respects but has the same objective, and on behalf of the Government I should like to indicate our broad support
888
for the object of this Bill which has now been expressed in another place as well as in your Lordships' House.
The Government believe most firmly that it is right to prevent the damage, and spare the distress, caused to somebody with an old criminal conviction which he has long lived down by the fact or the fear of the needless disclosure of it. I believe that in terms of finding jobs, or otherwise reintegrating into society, for the offender who has paid his price and complied with his sentence the most acute problem arises at once on discharge from prison or on conviction where there is a non-custodial sentence. That is the time when the man with a steady job or a settled way of life may lose it. That is the time when it is most difficult to find a job or a settled way of life if prison has taken him away. But this Bill is directed at another serious problem. It is aimed at the man or the woman who has a criminal conviction other than the one for which a very heavy sentence has been passed and who stays clear of further conviction for a substantial period of time. It deals with two separate aspects of the problem faced by such people.
First, there are many ways in which the existence of a past conviction may block a man's opportunities or, if actually divulged, may do him, his family and his social circumstances actual damage. Secondly, there is the fear of disclosure and its consequences and the effect that this can have over a long period of time in discouraging a man from applying for certain kinds of work and which can, indeed, cast a blight over his whole life by the ever-present fear of a disclosure which may never, in fact, occur. The sponsors have sought to tackle this problem by proposing, in effect, that a conviction which is not followed by a further offence should become spent. In principle, this Bill says that it should be spent for all purposes, but because of competing and conflicting considerations of equal or greater weight, we all agree that there must be some exceptions.
The House will know that the Government have given every assistance to the sponsors, including drafting assistance. The Government have done this because they support, as I have said, the broad objectives of the Bill. We accept that it is the will of Parliament, as expressed

889
by unanimous approval for the Second Reading of Bills on this subject in both Houses of Parliament, that there should be legislation on these lines. If there is to be legislation we must try to get it right even when time is short, particularly with a Bill of this kind which is complex and which interacts with a great many branches of the law.
In another place, considerable doubts were raised about the wisdom, necessity and feasibility of applying the Bill directly to the criminal courts—and my noble and learned friend has alluded to these—so that spent convictions would not be admissible either in the course of the trial—for example, when a witness was under cross-examination as to his credit—or at the time of sentence. In the event, it was agreed in another place, on all sides, that in the interests of justice—both justice to convicted offenders when under sentence and justice between the prosecution and defence in the course of a trial (and, I might also add, justice between offenders appearing in magistrates' courts on the one hand, and in the Crown Court on the other)—the Bill should not apply directly to criminal proceedings.
But as my honourable friend the joint Minister of State said in another place, we propose that the spirit of the Bill should be honoured by the criminal courts, and I am pleased to learn that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has indicated that he will be prepared to issue a practice direction, which we will certainly follow from the Home Office with guidance to the police and magistrates' courts. This guidance, which will reinforce advice which has for some years been given to magistrates' courts by the Home Office, will prevent the unnecessary recital in open court of old and irrelevant convictions (judged by the test of whether they have become spent convictions for the purposes of the Bill).
This will entail, I acknowledge, an additional task for the police. The House knows that the police are heavily stretched and I do not underestimate the care we should exercise before asking them to undertake any additional or further work. But I am satisfied that as this Bill now stands the effective and proper conduct of crime prevention and criminal justice will not be impaired. In this connection, we have paid particular
890
attention to Clause 9 which deals with unauthorised disclosure. This will in no way inhibit the police, or the services and agencies dealing with offenders from carrying out their official duties.
I have said that the Bill as it now stands, which reflects the Government's assistance in both matters of substance and expression, deals with complex issues. In doing so, it is unavoidably complex itself, both in its structure and in its language. This is partly because of the short time available to the Government for redrafting, and for consideration of the many points which have been raised in another place. It is also partly because of the inherent nature of the subject matter. But it is the intention of the Government that those who stand to benefit by the Bill—and, indeed, those who may otherwise be affected by its provisions—should have available a short and simple guide to its main provisions. A person with an old conviction who has not offended again, or indeed the man with perhaps an intermittent record of offending in his not too recent past, will be helped in this way to settle with some degree of certainty whether those convictions are spent or not. It is a happy coincidence when legislation can be drafted both to achieve its intended effects in law and to tell the ordinary man what those effects are in simple language. I fear this is not such a Bill but I believe that the issue of a guide will go a long way to help ordinary people to understand its effect.
There is another general assurance which I should perhaps give on behalf of the Government to organisations and individuals who may be affected by the Bill. Although legislation on this subject has been under discussion for the better part of two years, I fear it is only in recent weeks that a number of people have become aware of it. The Government have sought, in conjunction with the sponsors, to meet within the time available as many of those points as we can. And at key points in the Bill there is provision for orders to be made, with prior Parliamentary approval, to accommodate the legitimate needs of different kinds. The Government gave an assurance in another place that, for example, the admissibility of spent convictions in the disciplinary proceedings of professional bodies could be protected. And there is a power to specify by order the

891
circumstances in which a completely truthful answer can be required to a question, even when it relates to spent convictions—as might be the case where investigations are being conducted into the suitability of an applicant for a gaming licence or a firearms certificate.
There is provision in the Bill, once again with power to extend it by order should that be necessary, to protect people who, in the course of their official duties, deal with records of spent convictions and who may have a legitimate cause to pass on such information—where, for example, this may be relevant to medical treatment for a mental illness, or to social work with an offender and his family, for purposes of criminological research and so on. The Government believe that the Bill as it now stands, after prolonged debate in both Houses and following extensive amendment in another place—as my noble and learned friend indicated—is a workable measure. But I should like to assure the House that the Government for their part, and no doubt the sponsors for their part, will want to listen most carefully to the views of this House. Where substantial points arise on which further improvement is required, we will look at them during the remaining stages of the passage of this Bill.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has asked me to express his great regret that a long-standing public engagement prevents him from being in the Chamber on this occasion. He alluded to this in your Lordships' House last Thursday. While some of the Bill is the concern of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, it has substantial implications for the civil law which is my noble and learned friend's responsibility, and he has asked and authorised me to say something on his behalf about that clause of the Bill on which public attention has tended to concentrate during the last few weeks; namely, Clause 8, the defamation clause.
The reason why the clause is in the Bill is clear enough. If an offender who is rehabilitated is to be able to live his life without fear that his spent conviction may be wantonly disclosed, the law must provide some remedy against improper disclosure. The sponsors of the Bill—rightly, in our view—rejected the
892
idea of imposing a criminal sanction for ordinary cases of disclosure, reserving it only for the more serious case of improper disclosure by someone in an official position. The remedy therefore had to lie in the civil law and specifically in the tort of defamation. The Government have paid careful and detailed attention to all the views which were expressed on the introduction of the Bill in another place. Many of those views were against changing the law on defamation in the way proposed, and I should mention in particular the interim report of the Faulks Committee, for whose opinion—whether as a group or as individuals—we have great respect. The Government intend also to consider carefully the views expressed in to-day's debate by Members of this House.
Our view has always been that the defamation clause is an important part of this Bill, and that there is a serious risk that without it the Bill would fail in its intended purpose. For this reason since the time when Government support for this Bill was announced in another place, we have proposed a number of detailed changes in an effort, among other things, to assimilate the provisions of this clause as closely as possible to the present law of defamation, while preserving the principle of rehabilitation. In particular, it was necessary to try to strike the right balance between the principle of rehabilitation and the principle that it should always be possible publicly to declare the truth.
The Bill has been as fully and as carefully considered as time allowed, but we acknowledge that there may remain some respects in which it should be improved. As well as views expressed to-day, we shall pay careful regard to any Amendments proposed at the Committee stage and will look carefully into matters of detail there raised, and, if we think it necessary, we shall ourselves propose some amendment. The Government's position on the Bill during its consideration by this House is what it was in another place; namely, that of support for its broad objective, a willingness to lend assistance, including drafting assistance, on the substance of the Bill, and a wish to hear the views of noble Lords and to ensure that the Bill which is finally enacted expresses the will of Parliament.
5.20 p.m.
LORD WIGODER: My Lords, when, some 10 or 11 days ago, I put my name down to speak on this Bill it appeared to me that it was a Bill which had gone through its various stages in another place without a Division and might therefore be a suitably non-controversial subject upon which to venture to address your Lordships' House for the first time. In the last few days much criticism of the Bill has developed in the Press, and therefore I must ask your Lordships' forgiveness if some of the observations that I now wish to make have a slightly more contentious aspect to them than I had originally intended.
My Lords, I support this Bill as achieving a desirable object by means of machinery which is unutterably cumbersome, but which nevertheless will serve. With the observation that the objective is desirable there may possibly be little dispute. It is not difficult for someone who is born into a good home, who is expensively educated, comfortably housed, happily married and profitably employed to keep out of trouble with the law. It is infinitely more difficult, and more meritorious, for someone who may not have had these advantages and who has fallen foul of the law to keep out of trouble for a substantial period of time. It requires a strength of character and determination which are to be commended. In such circumstances those concerned clearly deserve help. They clearly deserve assistance against those who might, from malice or inadvertence, disclose some long forgotten previous trouble.
It is not only in the interests of the particular offender that this Bill is worth while. It is worth while too in the interests of the community, because many of us have had occasion to see people, prisoners, who have kept out of trouble for a very long time, whose previous convictions have in fact been disclosed and who as a result have lost maybe their jobs, maybe their homes, maybe their families, and who have drifted back into the criminal ways they sought to put behind them. In those circumstances, that this objective is desirable it may be, as I say, that there will be no dispute.
I ask next whether it is an objective that can be achieved without legislation. The
894
answer, I regret to have to say, is clearly not. This is not an area in which moral exhortation to the fundamental decencies of human nature is going to achieve its purpose. Therefore legislation there must be. I therefore ask firmly: Is the machinery that is proposed in this Bill adequate? I think it is around that issue, and that issue alone, that this debate might eventually revolve. One must face up to the fact that, if it is to be effective, there is an inherent problem in any legislation of this sort; namely, that it will not work unless the power and the right are given to certain people in certain circumstances to conceal the truth, and that penalties are created to prevent other people in certain circumstances from revealing the truth. There is that inherent dilemma in any legislation of this sort.
I take much comfort from the experience of foreign countries that was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. All the countries in the Council of Europe, and many others besides, have legislation to achieve this objective. It is of differing sorts. In some cases pardons are granted; in other cases records are destroyed. But all those systems have three features in common. First of all, they have to provide that in certain circumstances the truth can properly be concealed; secondly, they are all subject, as systems, to critical, academic, destructive analysis; and, thirdly, they all work. I am not aware that in any of these countries there is any volume of complaint from authors or journalists to the effect that their legitimate activities are being hampered in any way.
In those circumstances, I would venture to deal only briefly with the areas of criticism that appear to have sprung up in the course of the last few days. First, there is some criticism by those who have failed, to understand the provisions of this Bill—and, if I may say so, one can sympathise with them in relation to at least some of the causes. It is perhaps not fully appreciated that in no way has this Bill any application to the criminal courts. The spent convictions will be just as admissible as any other convictions where the character of a defendant or of a witness is in issue; but it will be open to the court, if they think it helpful and relevant, to have access to all a defendant's previous convictions, spent or

895
otherwise. Indeed in the civil courts, too, if spent convictions are relevant to the issue that is being tried there is a provision in the Bill under which they may be admitted. Criticism of a provision of that sort is clearly unfounded.
Secondly, there is an area of criticism which appears to consist of constructing entirely hypothetical situations in order to ask, "What answer does the Bill give to that situation?" One correspondent wrote, I think in The Times, to ask, "What do I tell my neighbour if he asks me whether it is true that my other neighbour had a conviction very many years ago?" One can think of many answers of varying degrees of terseness, but perhaps the short answer is that all of your Lordships have neighbours and I very much doubt whether in any of your Lordships' experience that question has ever been asked.
The third area of criticism is the one which has revolved around the defamation clause in this Bill. This is a matter which I approach with hesitation, keeping an open mind, because I am anxious to hear those speakers who will follow me and who are very much more expert on the law of defamation than I am. I venture to attempt to see whether I can accurately delineate the area of controversy. We are dealing solely with defamation actions which arise out of the printing of the fact that somebody has a spent conviction. They will be a small proportion of the defamation actions that arise. Under this Bill the defence of "fair comment" remains substantially unimpaired, substantially as it is at the moment. Under this Bill the defence of privilege—absolute privilege or qualified privilege—remains entirely unimpaired. It is quite misleading, as suggested in some quarters, that an employer who gives a bona fide reference to another employer in which he refers to a spent conviction of any employee will be in any way oppressed; and under this Bill it will still be a defence to say, "But the details of the spent conviction are true". The only amendment which this Bill makes to the law of defamation is that it goes on to say, "If that is the only defence you are raising then you must go on and establish that it is in the public interest that the matter was disclosed".
896
I do not find this a shattering innovation. The courts, judges and juries are well able to interpret the words "public interest" with abundant common sense. As I understand this clause, there is no need for worry by authors, historians, biographers or criminologists. There is no need for worry by those who indulge in the sort of serious investigative journalism which can be of very great value to our society. The only people that this modification of the law will hinder are those who indulge in scandal-monger-ing gossip in which they produce in print details of long-spent criminal convictions for no other purpose than to titillate or embarrass. If the objective of this Bill is a good one, as I believe it is, then that is an interference with the liberty of the Press which I, as a Liberal, am bound to say I would be prepared to tolerate with some fortitude.
My Lords, I would not want to suggest that the whole of the body of this Bill is entirely attractive. It may be that there are warts, some of which may have to be removed at a later stage, some of which may have to be treated, and some of which it may well be felt could safely be left without interfering with the operation of the Bill. But at this stage I ask leave to support this Bill as being a humane and a civilised gesture of assistance by society towards some of the members of our community who have shown by their own strength of character and determination that they are worthy of all the assistance we can give them.
5.32 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, it is a peculiar pleasure to me that I should have the opportunity of speaking immediately after one whom I can term my noble and learned friend, Lord Wigoder. I know I shall speak for all who have heard him in congratulating the noble Lord on his speech, and expressing the hope that we shall hear him frequently in this House. I may not be expressing the views of a majority of others present when I say how glad I am to have the body of lawyers in this House reinforced so brilliantly.
My Lords, I think no one in this House can do anything but applaud the object of this Bill. I hope that in this debate—and, I believe, in all the stages through this House—the effort of all of us will be

897
to make it a better Bill when it has passed through all its stages than it is in its present form. I share what I have no doubt are the regrets of all your Lord-ships at the limits imposed in the Bill upon the sort of misdeeds which can be wiped out. I am sure everyone would wish that the Bill could provide that disgraceful conduct in the past—whether it was a crime or whether, though a crime, it did not result in a conviction as, for instance, a man dismissed for stealing from his employer but not prosecuted, as so often happens—could be lived down. But I recognise that there are difficulties about that, to which I must confess I see no solution. I would not suggest that this Bill should be opposed because it gives a preferential position to those who have convictions. If we can help even them, though we cannot help the others, that is a worthy purpose to achieve.
I hope I shall not be accused of wanting in kindness, charity and compassion, to use the words which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, wrote in his letter in The Times to-day, if I were to join for a few moments those persons and bodies with expert practical knowledge of the law of defamation, the Faulks Committee, the Law Society (who have written to me) the President of the Bar Council and the Publishers Association, in suggesting that there are provisions in the defamation clause which require careful examination if that clause is to achieve its object without bringing unintended evils in its train.
My Lords, the trouble really comes from this. It has for long been a reproach to the English law of libel that it is highly complicated, extremely costly, and, I think everyone with experience of the matter would say, a form of civil litigation in which the result is more unpredictable than in any other. It is because of those technicalities, the cost, the unpredictability, that the Faulks Committee over the years has been studying to find some simplification. I believe their report is to be published within a month or two. Clause 8 of the Bill pre-empts that report. I do not say that that is necessarily a bad thing, but the way in which it pre-empts it is by bringing not simplication, but a further complication to the law of defamation.
Ideally, a civilised law of defamation has two objects: so far as is compatible
898
with legitimate freedom of speech—and that is an important qualification—to enable a man to vindicate his character, and to act as a deterrent to unjustified aspersions on him. The first object of the law of libel, vindication of character, is not the purpose of Clause 8 of the Bill. To bring an action for defamation could only give wider publicity to the spent conviction upon which the action is based, and it is important to remember this. If there is an inference of innuendo flowing from the reference to the spent conviction (that the person who was the subject of it is not reformed, and that is nearly always an innuendo that can be drawn from a gratuitous reference to a spent conviction), no change is needed in the existing law; he can bring his action for defamation as the law stands at present.
I turn to the second object of the law of defamation; that is, deterrence—and undoubtedly that is the purpose of Clause 8, to deter other people from publishing spent convictions. It is indeed a substitute for making it a criminal offence, and I am not sure that the better solution would not have been to make it a criminal offence. But when one looks at it as a deterrent, I think the first thing to remember—and I am looking at the law of libel not as a theory but in practice—is that a threat of action for libel or slander does not deter the impecunious from defaming. An action for defamation is costly to bring. Legal aid is not obtainable for it. I believe that the real danger of spent convictions being talked about lies not in publication in the press, not perhaps even in references by employers, but by gossip on the shop floor, tittle-tattle in the club, the pub or over the tea-cups. There is almost no deterrent to that.
But leaving aside the impecunious muck-raker, despite the complications of the law of libel, it does not deter freedom of speech unsupportably in this country, because there is still one part of the law of libel which is simple. To-day if you tell what is the truth you are safe; no one is likely to bring an action against you, because no one starts an action unless he is advised that there is at least some prospect of success, and if what has been said is the truth he will be advised that there is no prospect of success. But—and this is where the law of defamation in this country has gone so badly wrong—once you get away from a situation where

899
you cannot rely simply on the truth but must rely on something else or something more, privilege or fair comment, you run the risk of being sued for libel, and even though you are advised that you will ultimately win you will also be advised, if you are well advised, that the costs in which you are going to be landed in winning make it better to settle the matter. And if you are advised before you publish it you will be well advised not to publish it.
That that should be so is a reproach upon the law of libel. It was a reproach which the Porter Committee of some twenty years ago, of which I had the honour to be Secretary, tried to remove and failed. It is a reproach which the Faulks Committee to-day it still considering and one hopes will shortly be reporting on some solution to it. What I fear about the introduction of the complication of the necessity for public interest to be proved is that the ruling whether a particular publication was in the public interest necessarily depends upon the personal value judgment of the particular judge who tries the case, and varies with the evanescent flow of public opinion, which may be quite different when the case comes on for trial from when it was published.
May I give three practical examples of problems which it seemed to me must be dealt with and proposals for dealing with them at the Committee stage. First of all, it makes it dangerous for anyone to write or publish reminiscences which may refer to convictions, or may refer to acts which one did not know were convictions; it makes it dangerous for any one to publish them. There is a real problem, too, about librarians. The reminiscences are all right until the conviction is spent, but thereafter every time that book of reminiscences is issued from the library that is a fresh publication. Every time any of your Lordships consults The Times for ten years ago, as well you may, you are bound to find reports of convictions which by now are spent; and the librarian knows perfectly well that that, and indeed local papers in particular, bristles with convictions, so he is not able to rely upon the defence of innocent dissemination which is provided for in the Bill but which requires you to
900
have taken all possible and reasonable care to see that you do not.
May I finish with one word on references. Of course, this Bill does not alter the law of privilege so far as references are concerned. But the real defence in a case where an employer has given a reference is that it is true; as long as it is true he is safe. But once it is not true, once that is not enough and he has to rely upon an honest belief in its truth and an absence of malice, you get into that field where, alas! the law of libel is technical, it is risky, and no one knows where they are going to get out. The protection of honest references to-day, the practical protection, is not the defence of privilege, it is the defence of justification, that it was true.
My Lords, I have ventured to indicate to you, I fear at too great length, why it is that those who are concerned with the law of libel and its practical application are worried about the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill. I hope that it will be possible for this House at the Committee stage to solve some of those difficulties. I must confess that I think it is a difficult task that we have but, given good will—and I am sure that there is good will on every side and on the Cross-Benches in this House—I believe that we can go some considerable way to improving the methods by which the Bill seeks to achieve its worthy objects, which all of us applaud.
5.51 p.m.
LORD SALMON: My Lords, one of the tragedies of modern times is that there are so many men who leave prison with a firm determination to go straight, and who probably would go straight but for some of the terrible difficulties which are put in their path. Sitting as a judge in the Queen's Bench Division and in the Court of Appeal, I have often heard the story, very well authenticated, of a man who has been released from prison, who has disclosed his whole career to his employers, they have determined to give him a job and have taken him on, he has done very well for quite a long time and then suddenly, somehow, the whisper gets on to the shop floor that the man is an ex-gaolbird, and that man is so much tormented and bully-ragged that life is insupportable and he falls back into crime. This is an aspect of man's inhumanity to man which it is beyond the

901
power of the law to curb, but I suggest that the Bill is concentrated on those aspects of man's inhumanity to man which the law can, and should, curb.
I want to detain your Lordships for only a few moments. Take the case of any decent man who has the misfortune to be a litigant or a witness in a case. As the law now stands he can be cross-examined about an offence—it matters not what it was—some comparatively trivial offence of which he was convicted, perhaps ten years ago, and for which he received a sentence of six months imprisonment, and this is blazoned all over the Press where he lives and, if he is a man of any public means, all over the national Press. No one can blame the Press for that, but I blame the law which allows him to be cross-examined about such an old and minor offence.
The Bill is not introducing anything very revolutionary—well, it may be revolutionary, but no one can be dismayed by it. I should think that everybody would be overjoyed if you could not be cross-examined when you have lived down an offence, for which you had been given six months, for a period of seven years. Can anyone suggest that this is not long overdue? If, after you had served a sentence of 30 months you had gone straight for ten years, then that could not be dragged up against you when you are a witness, or a party, to litigation. I should have thought that those sections of the Bill are entirely unobjectionable.
I want to say a word about the defamation clause. I have the greatest respect for the Faulks Committee, for the chairman (who is a great friend of mine), and all the members on it. I can modestly claim to a little personal experience in this field because, during the last five or six years at the Bar, I had the good fortune to lead for many of the large national newspapers in libel actions. I hope that I am a strong unholder of the freedom of the Press, because I think that freedom of us all strongly depends upon it. I do not think that the suggestions in Clause 8 interfere with the freedom of the Press. Although I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock that the law of libel badly needs clarification and simplification (and I hope that it will receive it after the Report of the Faulks Committee), I do not agree that any complication is intro-
902
duced by Clause 8 that will make the work of simplifying the law in that direction any more difficult than it is now.
I ask my self whether it is conceivable—and, from my experience, I do not believe that is it—that any responsible newspaper would wish to publish the particulars of a man's conviction seven years ago, when he is completely rehabilitated, for the purpose of informing the public that he put his hand in the till and took out £10 that he should not have done, or that he exposed himself indecently. I do not believe that the Press wish for the freedom, if it is a freedom, to publish offences of that kind that took place so long ago, unless it is in the exceptional circumstance that it is in the public interest that they should do so. I can well understand the concern about public interest because, like public policy, it is said to be rather a difficult horse to ride, but the cases in which it is, or could be, in the public interest to publish that kind of stuff must be infinitesimal indeed.
I am not at all disturbed by the gentleman who wishes to write his reminiscences and would like to talk about his conviction that happened seven or ten years ago to a man who completely rehabilitated himself. I would rather inconvenience the author of that reminiscence than I would ruin the life of the man and his family, who would be concerned. I do not know about references. As you law would stand under Clause 8 you would have to prove that what you said was true; and in my respectful view it would not, as I read the clause, have anything to do with your belief. You could prove that it was true, but in addition you would have to prove that you were not using the privileged occasion maliciously; that is to say, that you were not using it for some spiteful or indirect purpose, but that you were merely disclosing the information because you believed it to be true and thought it was your duty. If you could prove those two latter things, the fact that you also proved it to be true would be unimportant. The best way of proving that you believed it is to prove that it is so.
A man who is giving a reference is put in a grave predicament. I do not propose to canvass the infinite variety of circumstances in which you might be called upon to do so, but there are cases where you might know of one minor conviction

903
years ago; for example, indecent exposure. This man is being selected for an important job, which has nothing to do with small boys, but, say, he is being selected for the highest executive position of a big company. I think most men would decide, "Well, I have known this fellow for 10 or 15 years and he has been perfectly straight." This has absolutely nothing to do with the job and probably you would not disclose the offence.
I think there are a number of cases where you might get an employer who, if he knew that he could walk straight out of the box by proving that what he said was true, might indulge his malice. Just imagine this case. An employer takes a man who is out of prison—and knows it—and the man has been with him for eight years and is a valuable and intelligent servant, doing a wonderful job and very underpaid. And the man says to his employer, "I am sorry to ask—I am very grateful for what you have done—but could you please put my wages up a little?" And the employer says, "No, I will not". Then a few months later the man comes back to his employer and says, "I have children to educate, I have been offered a job with a very big company, doing the same sort of work I am doing here and I am being offered 50 per cent. more than you are paying me. I hate leaving you, but I owe it to my family to go." The employer says, "Remember that they will have to come to me for a reference and I shall tell them all about the past. You had better think about that again."
It seems to me that it would be a reflection on the law if that employer were entitled to rely, when he was sued for libel, on the fact that the man did have that conviction ten months ago. I see nothing wrong in making an employer's defence one of privilege, because the occasion is privilege and you owe a moral duty very often to say all you know about a man. If you are worried, as you may well be, that you may be sued for libel, you have a perfectly good alternative. If you are a heartless person, you say you will not give a man any reference at all, which might do him far more harm. But if you behave as a reasonable, decent human being you will go to him and say, "Look, I have got to disclose the information that is in this letter, but I am telling them exactly
904
what I think of you and it is a very good reference, but I cannot hold these facts back. Now do you want me to send it or not?" If the man authorises you to send the letter you are safe from libel. If he does not then you do not send it.
As your Lordships probably have gathered, I am broadly very much in favour of the Bill. It does not mean that I do not think that in the Committee stage some of the clauses ought not to be looked at again. I am particularly worried about Clause 4(2)(a), although my fears may be set at rest. No doubt there are other clauses giving concern. My Lords, I have the honour to support this Bill at its Second Reading.
6.6 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to add our thanks from these Benches to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for persisting with this important and difficult matter, despite the changes and chances of the Parliamentary scene. Whatever hesitation or anxieties we may have about some of the consequences of the Bill I am personally confident that its principle is sound and that it is right to attempt to put it into legal constitutional form. Speaking in the debate in your Lordships' House on February 1 last year when a similar Bill was introduced for the first time, my reverend friend the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said that if we believe there must be a place in all penal administration for the process of reformation, then we are committed to the subsequent principle that there must be a place for forgiveness and forgiveness is a process by which the past, if it is not obliterated, is disregarded as having no further impact upon either the present or the future in the life of the person who is forgiven. In echoing that affirmation of belief, I would also affirm that the beginning of a new life must be the ending in principle of that life which preceded it. It is at this point that the difficulties for society as a whole are so much greater than they are for the individual.
In the previous debate to which I have already referred, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York was one of those who voiced the concern of many about a legal provision which enabled a witness or a defendant to give an untrue answer to a specific question. The Home

905
Office spokesman in another place said earlier this year that truth is no more permanent than any other principle of civilised conduct in a civilised society. There is also, he said, compassion and understanding, and for that reason, he contended, we must believe that compassion and understanding must be balanced against a declaration of truth. My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, this afternoon and of course I accept the claims of compassion, but does this argument give sufficient justice to the central role of truth-telling in the whole judicial process?
I have been rebuked here before for referring to myself as a layman in these matters, but on technicalities of the law I can speak in no other capacity—not least in a debate where seven lawyers are taking part. It seems to me that much depends on the way in which questions are put to a witness or a defendant. I was very interested to note a reference in a debate in another place to the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, where it is laid down in Section 16:
"In any proceedings for an offence committed … by a person of or over the age of 21, any offence of which he was found guilty while under the age of 14 shall be disregarded for the purposes of any evidence relating to his previous convictions; and he shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question relating to such an offence … "
My Lords, whether some such phrase as this could be incorporated into this Bill I am not competent to judge, nor would I know whether it could be implemented satisfactorily if it were. I rather hope it could.
My other anxiety about this Bill is that, while it seeks to serve an entirely worthy end—namely, the rehabilitation of former offenders in the community—it seems to do so by assuming as immutable the vindictiveness and the unwillingness to forgive of both individuals and institutions. I think we have been told that about one million people would be directly affected by this Bill, and I have seen it estimated that by the age of 60 about 31 per cent. of the population will have been convicted of indictable offences. My Lords, what we should surely be attacking is the continuing assumption that society can exclude former offenders as permanently unworthy
906
or incapacitated for civil life and responsibility.
But if I understand it aright this Bill, if enacted in its present form, will leave intact the prohibition which several large public employers of labour have against the acceptance into their employment of anyone who has any blemish at all on his past record. The law already prohibits discrimination on grounds of race, and we are well on the way to extending it to discrimination on grounds of sex. If we accept the principle of this present Bill as valid, and if we provide for all the obvious and necessary safeguards, ought there not also to be legal sanctions penalising discrimination against former offenders?
My Lords, the basic need of those who are genuinely seeking rehabilitation in society is a social framework of positive social relationships which will encourage them to make good. We now have statutory after-care services; and we now have a variety of hostels for those on bail, on probation, in the last stages of a long sentence and in need of after-care on returning to ordinary society. Some of these are statutory; many are run by voluntary agencies. Perhaps the greatest difficulty that they confront is the climate of public hostility which so often hinders rather than helps those who live in these hostels from securing employment or from obtaining social rehabilitation. Whatever hesitations I may have about this present Bill, I warmly support its being given a Second Reading, because I believe it may contribute in the long run to changing the deeply-rooted attitudes in society, and to making more effective the efforts of both statutory and voluntary bodies, who are together working for the rehabilitation of offenders against the law.
6.15 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I am attracted to this Bill, and am the more grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for bringing it before your Lordships this afternoon for two reasons, the first of which is a very practical reason. I would add the particular illustration to what was so movingly said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, of a man I know who is in the gutter to-day because, after many years of almost hopeless endeavours, after a conviction, to get a job, he finally got

907
one as a doorman. On a passing bus was somebody who recognised him, and who took it upon himself to go and tell the authorities. That man lost the job, and he has gone downhill ever since. I am not particularly impressed by the fact that he might indeed have summoned up greater courage; but I think he is typical of many people for whom such a change in the law as this would attempt to provide is something eminently to be desired. It will reduce a great deal of human suffering.
My Lords, as this debate has been somewhat unequally distributed between the law and, if I may say so, the prophets, the right reverend Prelate and myself, as members of the Christian Church, are aware that this is a legislative experiment and adventure in the field of forgiveness. If I may so say, forgiveness has been a much-vexed question that has sometimes plagued the theologians of the Christian Church. It might therefore not be inapposite if I were to endeavour to detain your Lordships for a little while in telling you something of the problems that we have had, and that your Lordships now have to shoulder in interpreting in legal terms this most desirable but difficult question of what forgiveness is.
The medieval philosophers distinguished between what they called the nail in the wood and the nail in the flesh. To remove the nail in the wood at the expiry of the sentence that is imposed for a crime or a sin still leaves the hole where the nail once was. The removal of the nail in the flesh under due conditions of health means that, sooner or later, the flesh entirely recovers and is as good as new. As the right reverend Prelate has so eloquently recorded, forgiveness belongs to that second category. It is in fact what Charles Wesley called:
"Breaking the power of cancelled sin, And setting the prisoner free".
But of course he is not free, in the strictly historical sense that he is still within the general framework of original sin, and therefore the Christian Church has had this very difficult job of equating this newness of life, which is the gift of forgiveness, with the historic and indestructible fact of a curriculum vitae in which sin has its part. It would not dare to try to bore your Lordships with this, but there are certain inferences which
908
I think are of value. It is in one sense impossible completely to begin again. Paul solved the problem by saying that the old Adam dies and a new Adam takes his place. That may be spiritually true, but it is extremely difficult to translate that into legal form. But they had some success, of course, in putting it in Latin; and there was a further success which I think is well worth recording, and that distinguishes between the truth as the possession of verity and the truth as something which it is your obligation to declare. I think the itch to utter is very distinguishable from the possession of truth; and I should have thought that in very many respects the Christian Church has been less than garrulous and sometimes indeed almost dumb. In its wisdom, this has preserved doctrines like the infallibility doctrine, but that is another question.
But the question which I believe faces those who would consider this issue is that there is a world of difference between the possession of the truth and the obligation to declare it; and sometimes silence is the golden mean as well as the desirable end. I think that in many cases where fears have been expressed, particularly with regard to the law of defamation, the experience of the Christian theologians is worth remembering, and it is that there is no definite obligation to declare a truth. That truth in many cases ought to be preserved within the decency of quietness for the sake of the common good and what theologians also call the "higher law", and I believe that the Bill represents an excursion into that higher law, a law in which we recognise that reality is richer than thought and that there are many matters which belong to grace which can never be incorporated within the framework of law. It is that consideration which empowers me to give what I honestly believe—and I think that my noble friend would concur in this—to be the general approval of those who are within the framework of the Christian Church for an attempt not only to relieve suffering which is manifest, and to which eloquent reference has been made, but also to provide a measure of new adventure into a field in which grace can take the place of law.
If the Bill receives its Second Reading, I for one believe that there are no final

909
obstacles—particularly with the incorporation of the element of public interest—which cannot be solved in Committee. I will finish by saying that what I am sure about is that not only does the Bill commend itself to decent people—and they have been eloquent in many respects in saying so—but it has presented to your Lordships this afternoon a number of problems which have not been faced and declared with a sense of finality but which have been seen to be incorporated in the good will of a Bill which, when it is given its Second Reading, can move on to the decisions which are necessary in the framework of Committee and in the difficulties which will arise. It is an adventure and I commend it as an adventure to which I believe your Lord-ships will give wholehearted support.
6.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, in view of the observations about the true meaning of forgiveness uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, it is with some confidence that I now ask him to forgive me for not following him down the road which he has been treading. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, cannot be displeased by the fact that, so far, everyone has supported and spoken in favour of the object of the Bill, as they did on the Second Reading of the Bill when it came before the House last time. I said then that I was in support of the object of the Bill: I have not changed my view about that at all, but I should not be frank with the House if I did not say that I have great doubts about the workability of the Bill in many of its provisions and about whether it will do much to achieve the object of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, of myself and, I think, of the rest of your Lordships.
My Lords, we are told that there are about one million people who have these convictions and who, to use the phraseology of the Bill, have now rehabilitated themselves. I suppose that they all have some degree of fear about whether the past may come to light. I do not know how real that fear is. We were given statistics by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, of the number of people in that position, but we were not given any information about the number of times in, perhaps, the last ten years that that fear has been realised. Nevertheless,
910
one would like to see that fear removed. That fear of exposure by the man who recognises him from the bus, the door-man case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Soper—such cases will not be touched by this Bill. It is sad, but, so far as I can see, they will not be. As I see it, the Bill attempts to deal with the problem by applying the sanction of proceedings for defamation in an endeavour to keep the past secret and prevent the spent conviction from being referred to.
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate drew attention to another part of the problem which is not touched; that is, the securing of employment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he spoke on the Second Reading of the last Bill drew attention to the difficulty of getting certain types of employment. One case, I think, was the Post Office. If one had had a conviction, perhaps, when one was 12, but had led an honest life ever since, he said—and I take it from him—that one could not get employment with the Post Office. I do not know to what extent the Bill will touch that, but I think we could improve the Bill by saying that that kind of conviction, followed by the period of rehabilitation specified in the Bill, should not be regarded as a ground for not employing a person. In a sense, that is applying the discrimination provisions in another field.
There were two other fields to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew attention on the previous Second Reading. There is the difficulty about business insurance, where if it is found that the man with a small business has had a conviction a long time ago, it may invalidate the policy. There is the difficulty about fidelity bond insurance, if one is employing someone with a conviction from no matter how long ago. Far better than just relying on defamation as a deterrent to revealing what has happened, surely one ought to have a provision to declare that a spent conviction followed by a rehabilitation period should not be allowed to invalidate a business insurance policy or a fidelity bond. But the Bill does not deal with that.
I mention these matters because I am disappointed with this new edition of the Bill. Although I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was

911
the author of the last Bill and drafted it himself, I feel that it was far better than the present Bill. To try to find one's way around the present Bill—and I hope that I have understood it correctly—seems to me to be like trying to unravel a tangled fishing line, and sometimes they do get very snarled up.
My Lords, there are a number of points with which I should like to deal. First, there is something which is new in the Bill and which was not in the last Bill, and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has not referred at all. I think I am right in saying that. For the first time all Service offences are being brought within the scope of the Bill, and I wonder whether it is right and whether one really need bother about them in this field, except perhaps where the court martial offence is one which is an offence against the criminal law of this country—and those are very easily identifiable. In the rest of those cases, surely they can be forgotten about and surely no one is frightened of such things as absences without leave being mentioned. It is so odd the way they are dealt with.
Your Lordships will see that one of the convictions excluded from the operation of the Bill is a sentence of cashiering. In the last war, a number of persons had the misfortune to be cashiered for conduct of a scandalous nature unbecoming to an officer and a gentleman. That very often consisted of passing dud cheques, though sometimes it was other things. After all, that is an offence which covers a very wide field. But to take the case of cashing dud cheques, tried before the criminal courts, that would almost certainly come within the scope of the Bill and be possible to be rehabilitated from. However, under the Bill as it now stands, a person who had been cashiered in the last war for the cheque offence could not be rehabilitated, no matter what he had done since and no matter what an honest life he had led.
Then, to take the other point, a Service offence which comes within the scope of the Bill, any soldier, sailor or airman who is sent to detention—it may be for some minor purely military offence—can get rehabilitated, but only after seven years. If he is dismissed from Her Majesty's Service he can get rehabilitated
912
after the same period. I must say that I am puzzled to know why one should complicate this Bill by bringing into its scope all these Services offences. If the object of the Bill is to remove from people the fear of exposure of their past I cannot think that there is any real need for this Bill to apply in those cases.
There is in this Bill another change from the last Bill. I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, making a powerful speech last time and saying that if a man had been fined he should not be able to be rehabilitated unless he had paid his fine. That seemed to me to be sense. Then there were discussions about whether it would matter if he paid his fine a little late. Although as a general rule if a man is to be rehabilitated he must serve the sentence passed upon him, in this Bill if he is fined he can be rehabilitated without paying the fine at all. That is an extraordinary change, a complete volte face, from the Bill as presented last time. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner did not say anything about it, and I should like to suggest to him—because I am concerned to try to make this a more effective and workable measure—that no matter whether it is paid on the due date or months or years later, it is a nonsense to say that a man should be rehabilitated when he has been fined and he has deliberately abstained from paying his fine.
There are one or two other points of that sort, but I shall not take up the time of the House by referring to them. However, there are two things to which I think I must refer and the first is that we had a lot said about, and my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon referred to, questions which solicit convictions being asked in the courts. If I understand it aright, this Bill makes no difference at all to the questions that can and may be asked in the criminal courts in the conduct of criminal trials, and the provisions about questions eliciting criminal convictions therefore are limited to civil proceedings. My noble and learned friend has great experience, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. I can speak only for myself, but I cannot recollect a single case of a witness having what would now be regarded as a spent conviction thrown at him. It could happen on cross-examination as to credit.

913
I think it is highly improbable, and I do not think that we should attach all that importance to that matter.
What worries me is how you are going to work the provisions in this Bill with regard to that point. The provision says that a person shall not be asked and if asked, shall not be required to answer, a question about a spent conviction. How is the court to find out whether the question is one about a spent conviction? That is what bothers me. The only way I can see that it can do so is by finding out what the conviction was and when it took place. It will then have to consider whether or not there has been a rehabilitation period, and that will involve consideration of whether the rehabilitation period has been extended by a subsequent misconduct. At the end of the day, after this inquiry, the court will say "yea" or "nay" as to whether this is a spent conviction. It is only when that happens that the court will be able to rule on whether that question can or cannot be put to the witness. As I see it, when you have reached that stage you might have put the question in the first place with far less harm being done because all the facts will have to come out to be able to rule on the question.
The same thing applies to the next provision. That is why I have great doubt about the workability of that part. I am not sure that it is really necessary. My noble and learned friend Lord Salmon seems to think that it is, but I am inclined to doubt it. Rather than have something of that sort happening which might give the matter an exaggerated importance, I would leave it for the time being to the judges and to the good conduct, which I think usually takes place, of the lawyers involved, to avoid unnecessary mudslinging.
Now I come to the controversial clause about defamation. I do not feel myself so concerned about the Press or what they may or may not do, but I feel considerable concern about the individual who innocently, not out of malice or anything like that, refers to a spent conviction and in consequence finds himself faced with litigation. I have one real criticism of this Bill, and this being a Second Reading speech I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for drawing attention to these things which I shall seek to raise if I can in Committee, to
914
give him forenotice in the hope that we can find answers to them. What worries me tremendously about this Bill is the difficulty any ordinary individual will have in finding out or in getting to know whether a conviction of which he knows is a spent conviction or not. He will find it frightfully difficult if he looks only at this Bill.
I am glad to hear that the Home Office are to publish a pamphlet. But my experience of Home Office pamphlets and things of that sort is that very often a properly drawn Bill is preferable: first, it is more accurate, and secondly, it is sometimes shorter and less verbose. May I just give your Lordships an example. In Clause 5(4) of this Bill, concerning the difficulty in ascertaining whether or not there has been a rehabilitation, it reads as follows:
"Where in respect of a conviction a person was conditionally discharged, bound over to keep the peace or be of good behaviour, or placed on probation, the rehabilitation period applicable to the sentence shall be one year from the date of conviction or a period begin ning with that date and ending when the order for conditional discharge or probation order or (as the case may be) the recognizance or bond of caution to keep the peace or be of good behaviour ceases or ceased to have effect, whichever is the longer."
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner may be able to work that out. I doubt very much whether I could. It would take me a long time. We ought to try to see, even if we have less variation in the length required for rehabilitation, whether we can get those rehabilitation provisions cleared up, made simpler, so that it will be easier for people to know whether the conviction about which they are speaking is one about which, as the Bill now stands, they are allowed or not allowed to speak.
I am not going to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock and my noble and learned friend, Lord Salmon, into controversy about the law of defamation. It is probably even more involved than the provisions of this Bill—and that is saying quite a lot. But we have to deal with it or get it clear, if we can, on Committee. I have a very considerable anxiety whether we shall be able to find enough time to get this measure as near right as we can before this Parliament comes to an end—and I am not asking for any Statement from the Government on that point. I beg the

915
noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, even if we cannot complete our task, to let us work on it to see how far we can go to get it right; and then, should he have to introduce it again in another Session of Parliament, it may well be that it will be a case of "third time lucky". But despite all the approval which he says he has had from other quarters and in different places, I am rather despondent about the possibility of curing what have been called the warts of this Bill in the space of the rest of this month of July. I support the Second Reading, and I have no doubt that the Motion will be carried.
6.40 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I do not think I have ever risen to intervene in a debate in your Lordships' House with a greater sense of inadequacy. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who drew attention to the preponderance of eminent legal pundits in the list of speakers over those who are not. I believe the ratio is in the order of 10 to 13—or 14, if you count the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, twice. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Soper, talking about the law and the prophets, because I am not a prophet either and I feel no more comforted by that remark.
I came to your Lordships' House today with a troubled mind and I am bound to confess that I am no less troubled—indeed, I am perhaps slightly more so—at this stage in the debate. I have already said, when the Bill was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, under the previous Administration, how much I welcomed the Bill in its general principle. I welcomed it again in its resurrection and its mention in the gracious speech. I share some of the misgivings which have been voiced before this debate in another place, in correspondence in the Press and in the lobbying which, like many others of your Lordships, I have had on this subject, about the defamation clause and not least about the complexities which the Bill now contains. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner will not take this amiss.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, described this as "a fishing line". To me it is a layman's legal nightmare. Of course, this is merely a confession of my own ignorance, but I should
916
like to express my firm conviction—and it really is my reason for intervening in the debate to-day—from some experience, admittedly at second-hand, that something needs to be done in law to remove the stigma and the prejudices arising from stigma for those who, having committted a crime, or having pursued a life of crime, and having been punished for it, have successfully demonstrated that they have put the past behind them. Something must be done in law, and it is for that reason that I welcome this Bill.
I take a very modest pride in having moved an Amendment to the earlier Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, which increased the maximum period which would qualify for the "spending" of a sentence from two years to two-and-a-half years, and I am glad to see that embodied in the present Bill. I should like to reiterate my conviction that the figure of two-and-a-half must not be regarded as an absolute or final limit for all time. There could be no moral justification for doing so, and to do so would imply that a sentence of, say, three years imposed by a certain court for an offence which, in itself and in the surrounding circumstances, was no more heinous than another offence committed by someone else who was awarded two-and-a-half years in another court, could never be redeemed.
In fairness, it follows that it should be possible to earn redemption in respect of much more serious offences carrying much longer sentences, albeit after a suitably longer period of keeping clear. What is more, I think we shall have to keep in mind when this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, such things as changes in sentencing policy or changes in the law regarding the maximum sentences that may be imposed for particular offences. For instance, if we were ever to arrive at the situation which has been arrived at in Holland, where a few years ago they in effect halved the great majority of their sentences, this would have an immediate bearing on this rehabilitation measure.
I should like to turn now to the other side of the picture which has been portrayed during this debate. I share some of the misgivings that have been voiced about the defamation clause. I think I still share them to some degree, but I shall go on listening to the debate with great care and I should like to assure the noble

917
and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that I have every intention of supporting the Bill on its Second Reading. It comes as something of a shock to the layman in these matters to find that a truth must be turned into an untruth, or vice versa, by law, or that a truth must be denied in certain circumstances on oath. I would rather put it in far simpler terms by expressing myself as an ordinary humble citizen. I have long held it as a tenet of common decency and kindness that there are occasions—and here I am very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Soper—when charity commands silence, and when to blazen forth or even to whisper an unpalatable truth, which by the telling has no other purpose or motive than to harm a person, or to feed the vanity or to give expression to the malice of the teller, or (and here I shall be very careful, as a member of the Royal Commission on the Press) which has no other value than as a headline with a commercial pay-off, is morally wrong.
As a very general personal guide, I have always felt that when truth and charity were directly in conflict I should incline towards charity. But the question is: should, or could, such apparent moral wrongs, if that is what they are, be made legally wrong? I am still uncertain about some of these questions after listening to the debate, but I would say that in so far as this Bill gives legal expression to that sentiment regarding truth versus charity, in connection with rehabilitation after a substantial period of good conduct, and in so far as the Bill provides for both these criteria in a workable way—and there seems to be some difference of opinion on this—and in so far as it does not trespass on responsible exercise of freedom of expression, then on those four criteria I support the Bill.
However, this leaves certain other doubts still in my mind which have been put there during the debate this afternoon. Surely rehabilitation does not end there. I do not know whether to be pleased or sorry, but I suppose I should be pleased that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has stolen my thunder by taking this point immediately before me, because defamation too often leads to
918
discrimination, and I am concerned that the Bill should go on to provide redress for a person whose sentence has been spent and who can show that he has been prejudiced by a "spent" sentence, whether or not there has been defamation to bring this about, or has been unfairly discriminated against because of that offence committed X years ago. I had wondered before coming here whether perhaps existing legislation catered for that aspect of discrimination. From what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said, I infer that it has not and I would ask my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner whether he would consider amending the Bill by adding what I would call "a forgive and forget clause" in that sense.
In conclusion, I believe that the need for protective legislation for ex-offenders exists and should be persisted with, despite the complexities which have been revealed and the complications to which this legislation may give rise. I believe in two further values, one of which has already been mentioned by, I think, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, who pointed out the value of encouraging a person to earn the respect and trust of society by proof of good behaviour. The second one—which has not emerged in the debate though, no doubt, it has been implied—is to give a lead to public opinion towards a more forgiving climate for what has demonstrably been put into the past and should be forgotten. I share the concern over the complexities and complications of the Bill; but, nevertheless, I hope they will be removed or reduced in Committee and I support the Bill.
6.50 p.m.
LORD HODSON: My Lords, having no intention of voting against the Second Reading of this Bill, I shall certainly not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. First of all, I should like to express my admiration of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He and I have known one another for the whole of his professional life. He has always been dedicated not only to justice and fairness—to which he has contributed his great ability—but has also given his energies, learning and qualities to giving help to those people who, in his opinion, need help. This he is doing in this case.

919
The only point I should like to make on the content of the Bill relates to publishers. In that matter I have to admit an interest. I have no pecuniary interest in a publishing firm nor has my daughter, except that she is employed by one as a salaried executive director. Having made that admission, I hope I may be allowed to make a point in favour of publishers. A letter was written to The Times to which my attention has been drawn pointing out the great difficulties in which publishers can be put. A publisher, as we know, sends out books to libraries and book shops and has not practical control thereafter over what happens to the books. If a spent conviction comes to light and is distributed, the publisher is hard put to it to prove that it was in the public interest. Lawyers all know that public policy is an unruly horse. Public interest is, too; it changes from day to day. One opinion about public interest is not the same as another opinion. I regard that as an insufficient protection for the publisher. I am not going so far as to say that the whole of the clause dealing with defamation ought to be cut away, but I hope it will be possible to amend it so as to give some further protection before this Bill becomes law.
6.53 p.m.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, I would not be justified at this late hour in detaining your Lordships for long, but I should like to support the principles of this Bill and therefore its Second Reading. In doing so, I feel bound to express grave misgivings about the way that the Bill is drafted and about much of its machinery. I said that I supported the principles of the Bill. I am a member of one society which sponsored the pamphlet on which it is founded, and I had the honour, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to found one of the other societies. I am naturally predisposed to any recommendations coming from that source, particularly as the noble and learned Lord was Chairman of the Committee.
Although it is many years since I was a Home Office Minister, and although I certainly do not claim the expertise that many of your Lordships have in this field, I remember vividly the difficulty that was impressed on me by a recidivist who was trying to live down his past,
920
and his discouragement should it be suddenly raked up. There are not many of those cases, but if we can save even a few it is worth while. There are other cases mentioned in the report, Living it Down, such as the single offender who has paid the penalty of his offence. Of course courts, in sentencing, take into account the fact that it is extraordinarily difficult to live down an offence. Nevertheless, I agreed very much with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and many other noble Lords, that society should be prepared, so far as possible, to wipe the slate clean in respect of an offender once he has served the penalty that has been thought suitable.
On the other hand, I do not think that those of us who support this measure do it any service by exaggerating the dimensions of the problem. The figure of one million has been mentioned; that gives a wholly exaggerated idea of the dimensions of the problem. For example, the great philosopher, Professor Alexander, when he was excogitating on the problems of time, space and the Deity, habitually used to bicycle along the pavements, much to the alarm of the citizens of Manchester. Many offenders are of his type and they vastly swell this figure of one million.
The pamphlet Living it Down starts with eight examples, and very moving examples they are. But this Bill deals by way of remedy with only four of those examples. If that is a fair way of looking at the problem, it means that, quite apart from the Professor Alexanders, one has to divide the figure of offenders by two. There is the impact on the recidivist which, in human terms, is a very serious problem; but is a very small one numerically.
Finally, I would utter a word of warning against the invocation of foreign systems, which are a very unsafe guide in this field, since so many of them proceed on the basis of a loss of civil rights, of which our law knows nothing. I always feel considerable misgivings when I hear arguments to the effect that a little injustice is acceptable so that great good may ensue. It always seems to me that the little injustice is certain, whereas the great good designed to ensue is so often problematical. But in this case the authoritative voices that have constructively criticised this measure indicate that it is not merely great good that can ensure,

921
but that considerable injustice is likely to ensue unless this measure is considerably amended.
I do not propose to go into the defamation clause, because the matter was dealt with, if I may say so with respect, in a masterly speech by my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock. However, I would say that it seemed to me that the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill was again doing it no service by minimising the problems which it raises. It is no analogy at all to say that the law already suppresses truth in excluding certain evidence. Certainly it does. The law excludes evidence in the interest of justice when it feels that the evidence might be prejudicial or unsafe or might otherwise bring about injustice. But it is one thing, in charity or justice, commanding silence about truth in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, described; it is quite another thing when the law commands a lie, which is what this Bill does. The phrase "licensed perjury" has been used. That is not just a term of rhetoric; that is precisely the principle that the Bill enshrines. However much we welcome its objectives, we should hesitate long before seeing such a principle enshrined, and to do our best to see whether what we all wish to see done cannot be carried out without such violence to justice and to law.
Having said that I myself support the objectives, I should not like it to be thought that I am willing to damn with faint praise and assent with civil leer; and so I am bound to say what I think could and should be done. This is one of the many cases where a good is likely to be sacrificed by trying to do rather better. If we limited our objective we should be more likely to achieve success in this field. The Bill tries to do too much. On the other hand, it is only right to say that in one respect the Bill tries to do too little. The periods of penalty which rank for rehabilitation are now fixed too short, and I prefer the periods that were originally proposed.
There are four provisions which would really in my respectful submission achieve the bulk of the objective which we all have in mind. The first point is that, as your Lordships know, evidence can be called in a court of law only if it goes to some issue which is in question. One cannot call evidence as to a man's char-
922
acter unless his character is an issue in the case, as it will be if he puts it in issue in a defamation action. But what one can do is to cross-examine any witness or party, not only as to any matter at issue but also to show that he is not a person to be believed—what is called, technically, cross-examination to credit. The example that was given by my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon in his powerful speech was an example of cross-examination to credit—raking up some spent conviction. If we dealt with that, we would deal with a great deal of the problem that faces us. If we said that no one shall be asked, or if asked bound to answer, any question relating to his spent conviction, we should have dealt with most of the hard cases—I think all the hard cases—that have been mentioned before your Lordships in this debate.
Secondly, a matter arises out of Clause 4, which deals among other matters with statements about a person's character out of court—questions about a previous conviction raised out of court. I should have thought that that could be dealt with, without requiring either a lie in a reference or—what will be very damaging to a convicted man whose conviction is spent and who may genuinely have lived down and exonerated the offence—a silence on the part of the referee, out of fear of an action. If we said that any question out of court about a previous conviction shall be limited to unspent convictions unless the circumstances are such that the person putting the question owes a legal or moral duty to make the inquiry as to a spent conviction, not only would we then meet the gravest cases, the hardest cases, within that field—questions out of court—but we should also protect the person who would be failing in his legal and moral duty if he did not mention, perhaps in relation to offences against children, that there was some danger that might be apprehended.
The third matter I would venture to suggest is in relation to defamation, because it seems to me that the onus is the wrong way round here. I should like to see it enacted that justification by pleading the truth of the matter published should be no defence if it is proved that the reference to the spent conviction is malicious. That, again, would meet the case that was put by my noble and

923
learned friend Lord Salmon. It seems to me most unfair to journalists, librarians, authors, publishers, that they should have to prove the absence of malice, as they do under the Bill. The onus should be on the plaintiff.
Finally, I would endorse the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne that one could deal with discrimination in employment on the lines that it has been dealt with in the Race Relations Acts. In other words, it should be unlawful to discriminate in employment against a person with a spent conviction. It seems to me that that is perfectly simple and perfectly intelligible. I thought that the noble and learned Lord did less than justice to Mr. Bernard Levin when he made that valuable suggestion.
I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that this matter is so important and so complicated that a Select Committee would be the ideal machinery to deal with it. Your Lordships could bring to such a Select Committee great expertise. The objectives of the Bill have been generally welcomed. On the other hand, there has been authoritative alarm about several of the provisions. What we are doing is to pre-empt the findings and recommendations of the Faulks Committee, and I beg the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to show patience and flexibility, and to adopt that specific so that a measure that we all wish to see in principle carried into law can be carried into law without disrupting the rest of the law, and without causing injustice to innocent people.
7.11 p.m.
VISCOUNTCOLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has always been a very great enthusiast, and perhaps never more than in relation to this Bill. I venture to suggest that he will be rewarded this evening by again seeing it have a Second Reading. This would be right, because the groundswell of opinion in this House this afternoon, in speech after speech, has been very much that expressed by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that we all find its objective desirable. That is exactly what happened on the last occasion when the noble and learned Lord introduced the Bill into this House.
924
I cannot remember anybody speaking then or, indeed, on any other occasion who did not say that the objective of the Bill was entirely desirable and something that he supported. However, if I may again draw a comparison between what has happened this afternoon and what has happened on earlier occasions, particularly the last Second Reading, I would say that this House has acquitted itself a great deal more creditably to-day than it did the time earlier. That is probably because the course of discussion has, albeit somewhat belatedly, thrown up, to the interest of a number of people who had not realised it earlier, some of the substantial problems which still lurk inherently in this measure.
My Lords, on the last occasion the noble and learned Lord had what was admittedly a Bill which was drafted by a very skilled amateur and, as he rightly said in his speech, he went on improving it all the way through in answer to criticisms largely from me when I was speaking from the Government Front Bench. However, I do not remember many other people bringing profound, analytical eyes to bear upon some of the matters which we have heard discussed this afternoon, and which were, indeed, discussed in another place when this Bill was being dealt with there. It is curious how nobody before seems to have paid much attention to some of the difficulties which I, with perhaps undue modesty, ventured to present to the House. Some of these are beginning to be recognised now as being the severe problems which I always rather feared they were.
In one other way I should like to echo a number of the speeches which have preceded mine; that is, by agreeing very much with the noble and learned Lord Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that we are not always assisted by being told that in every country in the Council of Europe and, for all I know, in every country in the rest of the globe, this, that or the other happens without being given anything more than the general principle. It is perfectly right that a conviction in some countries of Europe carries with it civil disqualification; so of course it is necessary to have machinery whereby in due course a person may be rehabilitated so that he may vote, or act as a member of a local authority or something of that kind, and in the process he gets rid of the criminal

925
conviction for other reasons as well. But that is not the pattern of law in this country and it does not necessarily follow that our legal machinery is well equipped to deal with the kind of concepts that this Bill involves. Therefore, my Lords, while I have always said that the objective is desirable, I have always also said that it is extremely difficult to achieve in legislative form.
It is perfectly plain as well that when people like myself said that all was not well in the Bill as it was originally drafted, not only in detail but also in principle, we had, as it has turned out, a certain amount of justification because the Bill which the noble and learned Lord now brings before us is indeed different in some marked particulars from the form in which it originally appeared—and I do not just mean in drafting. In that respect it is totally different in every possible way. I would not entirely disagree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in finding it rather difficult or in fearing, with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that many laymen who have served short terms of imprisonment, or who have been fined, encounter mild difficulties in finding their way around it so as to discover when they may claim to have been rehabilitated. That is the inevitable consequence of getting it into what is technically the right form for our particular form of legislation. If I may respectfully so suggest, in the process it casts certain doubts upon our particular form of legislation.
However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has now presented a Bill which, thank goodness, leaves out the vexed question of magistrates' courts. I think that if the noble and learned Lord had still insisted upon withholding from magistrates the details of people's past convictions, and had persisted in what I consider to be the purest idiocy in not allowing a magistrates' court to find out that a person had been on probation at the time when a probation order was breached, because the case did not come on for trial until a little too late and small matters of that sort, then I should have had to take a fairly strong line against it. That has all gone, but it has gone as a result of a tremendous amount of argument—and I think probably not even now with the full conviction of the noble and learned Lord that it is right.
926
There have evidently been changes which have had to be made to this Bill and I am not sure that we have yet come to the end of the process. We have got rid of the certificate machinery which I know was originally put in at the suggestion of my honourable friend the Member for Runcorn, who was my co-Minister of State. However, when this was examined it appeared that we in the Home Office, too, had got it wrong. So, very properly, it has come out again. But there will be the resultant difficulty that people will not know—and I do not think they would have known under the certificate machinery, either—when they are rehabilitated, or not, at any rate, with any ease.
My Lords, while we are on points of detail, the noble and learned Viscount mentioned the question of the fine from which one could be rehabilitated even though one had not paid it. Incidentally, for those who are running the mechanics of this matter, there are two rival versions of the Bill which are going around. One of them has nine clauses and until very recently was readily obtainable in the Printed Paper Office. Now there is another version, which I suppose is the revised version. That has 10 clauses and a corrigendum sheet. I think that it is the latter which we should be looking at. Some of the references which have been made in the debate, particularly those by the noble and learned Viscount, were to the former. While I am on the mechanics, those of us who are interested in this matter will be exceedingly anxious to see a copy of the Report of what has been said by some of the noble and learned Law Lords this afternoon, in particular, and some of the more theological points which were made by the inhabitants of the Benches opposite me when it was their turn to speak. I hope that there may be some means whereby a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT can be made available because on this technical subject those speeches were clearly of the greatest importance.
I was referring to the question of the unpaid fine, and I turned over the page because I remembered also a problem arising in my mind under Clause I(2)(b), whereby a person was not to be disqualified from rehabilitation merely because he broke one of the conditions of, for instance, a suspended sentence, whether or not that breach was dealt with. I do not

927
understand how this works because if one looks at Clause 6(2) one sees that where more than one sentence is imposed in respect of a conviction there are special provisions to calculate the period of rehabilitation. For all I know these two passages may be compatible with each other, but what occurs in practice when a suspended sentence is breached is that the person is sentenced for the criminal act of which the breach consisted and he is also liable to have the suspended sentence itself activated. I imagine that the suspended sentence is then at any rate liable to be overtaken by the sentence imposed in relation to the breach.
Therefore, while it may be that the question does not arise, it shows the complication of the thing that I do not know whether Clause 1(2)(b) overrides Clause 6(2) or vice versa, and a large number of possible complications arise from this particular set of circumstances. We are giving the noble and learned Lord notice of some points that are really Committee points, and that is one of them.
The other thing that concerned me a little was what happened under Clause 9 when a person is dead, he being one who is the subject of a spent conviction. Plainly this does not matter from the defamation point of view—or at least I do not think it does, although relations may possibly in some circumstances (if I am not totally wrong) have some course of action. However, there is no doubt what happens under Clause 9. It does not matter how long ago a person died, as the clause stands at the moment nobody who has charge of official records will be allowed to give details to a biographer of a person's convictions and sentences if during his lifetime they became spent.
The purpose of the Bill is not, as I suspect, necessarily to preserve somebody's reputation at all costs for ever in face of the truth and in face of somebody writing a book to show how, for instance, a sentence of imprisonment affected him and made him act thereafter. I would have thought that the noble and learned Lord did not intend to prevent researchers from being allowed to see the records appertaining to people who are dead. Again, I may have got it wrong, but I cannot see anything in Clause 9 which prevents that being an offence, and I do not think that the Order-making provisions
928
whereby the Secretary of State can make exceptions will really be very easy to apply in such circumstances. He will have to make Orders for each individual researcher, and that will be an extremely tiresome, time-consuming and probably inadequate procedure. So if the noble and learned Lord could either set my mind at rest by writing to me about that or else consider it at the Committee stage, I should be grateful.
These are but some of the rather smaller points that have caused us trouble. The major issue which has emerged—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, in drawing attention rather pointedly to what has and what has not been published in The Times newspaper, is not really in any way suggesting that these are not major issues—is the conflict, which I am bound to say I had never had brought to my attention so pointedly before, between the concepts of the Tightness of truth and the Tightness of justice. The more one comes to consider these two concepts the more difficult they become.
Everybody would have thought, that at any rate the truth of past events was quite certainly particularly small events like convictions in a court, or something that was so irrefutable that it came as near to be absolute as was possible; but when one comes to consider these things a little further there is a method of re-interpretation of the truth which is adopted, as I understand it, by the dialectical materialists and certainly was done very satisfactorily by George Orwell. It may well be that a conviction for a criminal offence can, in certain circumstances, be turned into martyrdom, or indeed into a positive act of glory, by a change in political thought or something of that nature. Certainly we have had the advice of those who know a good deal more about theology than I do—and that would not be difficult—in suggesting that in some cases there may well be advantages in definitely deciding not to rehearse even the truth about minor and disputable events. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the right reverend Prelate were saying. So after all we do not have anything like so absolute a concept as all that, and it is this concept upon which the defence of the present system of defamation has largely rested. So I am still disturbed about the purity of this defence of truth, although I understand and very much appreciate the

929
simplicity of it when it comes to defamation, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, so cogently pointed out.
But the rival concept which has been in our minds this afternoon is that of justice, and when one searches for it, as it seems to me in this context and probably in others, it can lead one into many subjective interpretations of what will in fact produce it. So again this Bill is justified by its protagonists on the grounds that it embodies justice. It embodies justice as those who believe in it see justice; but that is no more absolute than, I am afraid, is truth in this concept, and it suffers from a grave extent of subjectivity. Heaven forfend that I, or indeed perhaps this House, should attempt to come to a definitive conclusion about either of these mighty matters, but does it not give us cause to think that when we do consider this matter in Committee, as I am sure we shall, we should do so with extremely open minds? I shall not be wedded to any necessary commitment to truth being the one indisputable stronghold in the quagmire of the law of defamation if the noble and learned Lord will also abandon the rigidity or the robustness of his approach (I do not mean to criticise him in any way) about the way in which the Bill is drafted at the moment. After all, he has put in the concept of the public interest (which was not there before) in response to what I suspect was overwhelming pressure. He is now being pressed to make further changes. If what we want to do is to get a good Bill, then let us by all means attempt further to analyse these matters.
Lastly, what really worries me about the public interest—and I am no expert on the law of defamation—was borne out by those two noble and learned Lords who so pre-eminently do know, Lord Diplock and Lord Hodson, both of whom say that there is this trouble about the public interest, that it changes quite quickly, not only between one judge and another but over a fairly short period of time. If you are a journalist or author, or indeed I suppose if you are a librarian, and you wish to avoid getting into trouble, your faith has to be of a very substantial degree indeed. Your advice has to be very sound and extraordinarily far-sighted before you can know in advance whether you are really safe.
930
The conclusion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, was that people would play safe and would not publish, and I do not believe that that is necessarily in the public interest either. After all, what was hushed up might have been information that was held to be in the public interest. Therefore, we are moving in very difficult and complicated areas of the law. If those who have spoken this afternoon will really apply their minds to improving this Bill, then I believe that in his turn the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will still be prepared to listen, and I believe that he would do his own cause a very great disservice if he did not.
7.31 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have taken part in the Second Reading of this Bill. May I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on his admirable maiden speech? If I may say so, I take a special interest in his presence in this House as we have in this House men appointed because they have earned a certain reputation in their own speciality, and while that of course applies to the noble and learned Lords of Appeal, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and I are the only two barristers who have ever found themselves in this House without any other qualification—in my case, at least—except that of being a member of the Bar. We all listened with delight to his speech. There was a point about which I had thought of asking him, because I was a little puzzled about it, and that was regarding a letter from the Bar Council stating the views of our Council, followed by a letter saying that the Bar Council had never considered the Bill. Perhaps he would like to intervene now on this puzzling point.
LORD WIGODER: My Lords, if I might give the information, the letter from the Chairman of the Bar Council came as the result of a meeting of the Executive Committee at which ten people were present, the item not being on the agenda beforehand.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am very much obliged. It was a modest and, if I might say so, a thoughtful speech, and I am sure that we shall all look forward to hearing him again as soon as we may. Your Lordships will not, I am sure, think me ungrateful for

931
the forecast that has been made of Amendments which may be moved on the Committee stage of the Bill. On the other hand, I am sure I will not be expected to deal with them now. The comments about public interest, like all the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, were very interesting. So far as people like librarians are concerned, there would be threats of innocent dissemination as well as public interest involved. Regarding public interest, I am afraid it may be an old failing of mine but I have long found it very difficult to believe that, while practically every other country can have a law, it is absolutely impossible only in England, and could not work. Public interest exists in Australia. They have to construe it and no doubt it changes. If these things work all right in Switzerland or Australia in varying states, why should we assume that they could not possibly work here?
I was interested that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said that it might have been better to make it a criminal offence. This issue has gone on all the way through. Everybody has said that we cannot go on and on being the only country in Europe which has no rehabilitation law. If these practices are to be stopped one must have some form of sanction and other than the one which we have proposed, of making things admissible in evidence with the consequences of that, nobody has suggested any alternative at any time, including to-day, except that you might make it a criminal offence, as indeed has been suggested by one member of the Faulks Committee though the others did not agree. I hope very much that the Press will report that, because it might lessen their anxieties about this Bill a good deal if they realised—and of course I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord about this—that the only alternative is to make it a criminal offence. The only two practical ways are either this way or by a law under which editors might be sent to prison.
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, for his support and for the support on the difficult moral issues about truth involved in what the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Soper have said. As
932
regards the words which the right reverend prelate quoted from another Act, about not being asked but if asked not being required to answer, he will find that point covered in the Bill at Clause 4(1)(b). If I may say so both to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there are grave difficulties in regard to employers; first, in proving why an employer has not employed somebody; secondly, in making him employ somebody he does not want to employ; and, thirdly, and perhaps, above all, because from a common sense or moral point of view it might be legitimate for an employer to refuse to take a man in one occupation whereas not in another occupation. To take a simple instance, more regard might be had to a criminal conviction for dishonesty when a man is going to handle a lot of cash. But it may well be that if we start in this way we can go on dealing with these other points in the future.
As to the observations made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, fines were considered closely in the other place, and were omitted on Government advice because of the difficulty of saying whether somebody had deliberately failed to pay a fine or was not in a position to pay, and, particularly in the case of instalments, the administrative difficulties would be too great. Apparently that was the view taken by the other place. So far as Service proceedings are concerned, we dealt with those to some extent in the previous Bill. It is a matter on which I understand the Ministry of Defence have strong views and they, of course, have had to be taken into account. As I understand it, cashiering with ignominy and so on is regarded as a very serious step. My Lords, there are a number of oher matters which can no doubt be considered on the—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I agree that cashiering is a serious step, so is discharge with ignominy. But I really do not think that cashiering comes into the same category as somebody who has a life sentence imposed upon him. Cashiering is frequently incurred for nothing more serious than passing a dud cheque. I hope that that will be reconsidered by the noble and learned Lord, and that he will use his influence with the Ministry of Defence to get a more sensible view about this.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I was not expressing a personal view about this at all. I think if the Amendment is moved it will be found that the Government may have some view about it. My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was seeking to be of assistance in proposing a Select Committee. I am afraid that in my experience a Select Committee usually means that someone wants to delay something—maybe for a very good reason. But, obviously, if a Select Committee were appoined it would be delayed for three or four years and mean-while nothing would be done.
My Lords, I was of course particularly concerned with what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said. I will write to him on the points to which he referred. On the two Bills, there being some printing difficulty, the first one I had typed and done myself, and it was marked "Not official" so that all noble Lords might have a copy as soon as possible. The other was done by the Public Bill Office with the erratum slip. I agree with him that there is here a question of principle. There are differences now between the present position and the position when this Bill was in this House earlier. One of the differences, of course, and it is rather a material one, is that the principle of the Bill—that is to say, the way in which the desired object is sought to be achieved, which was new in this House and which we first had to decide—has since been approved by the elected Chamber in two different Parliaments. I suggest that in anything we do in Committee stage that we should bear that in mind. Having said that, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and in helping us to get a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING BILL
7.42 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gamsworthy.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD POPPLEWELL in the Chair.]
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 26 insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure, of interest by members of committees of registered 1965 Act associations.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of a member of the committee of a registered 1965 Act association who is in any way, whether directly or indirectly, interested in a contract or proposed contract with the association to declare the nature of his interest to the committee in accordance with this section.
(2) In the case of a proposed contract, the declaration required by this section to be made by a member of a committee shall be made at the meeting of the committee at which the question of entering into the contract is first taken into consideration, or, if the member was not at the date of that meeting interested in the proposed contract, at the next meeting of the committee held after he becomes interested in the proposed contract.
(3) Where a member of a committee becomes interested in a contract with the association after it is made, the declaration required by this section shall be made at the first meeting of the committee held after he becomes interested in the contract.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a general notice given at a meeting of the committee of an association by a member of the committee to the effect that he is a member of a specified company or firm, and is to be regarded as interested in any contract which may, after the date of the notice, be made with that company or firm, is a sufficient declaration of interest in relation to any contract made after that date with that company or firm.
(5) A member of a committee need not make a declaration or give a notice under this section by attending in person at a meeting of the committee if he takes reasonable steps to secure that the declaration or notice is brought up and read at the meeting.
(6) A member of a committee who fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall

935
be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(7) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prejudice the operation of any rule of law retricting members of the committee of a registered 1965 Act association from having any interest in contracts with the association.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14 to insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. Although this is a fairly lengthy clause, the purpose is very simple. It is to require a member of the committee of the registered association to disclose to his filial committee members any interest he may have in any contract which his association has entered or proposes to enter, and makes it an offence for him not to do so. I do not think I need say more than that. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Management grants for certain housing associations.]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendments No. 15 to 21:
Page 27, line 45, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 5, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 15, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 20, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 22, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 25, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 26, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. They are all identical. Each of them would leave out the word "subsidy" and insert the word "grant". The word "grant" has been used throughout the Bill except in these instances, and it would seem sensible to use the same term. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Declaration of housing action areas]:
7.48 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 34, line 33, at end insert—
("If, on receiving such a report prepared by the residents of the area in question, the local authority decides not to declare a housing action area, the authority shall send to the Secretary of State a copy of the report together with a statement of its reason for deciding not to declare a housing action area, and shall send to the persons who prepared the report the same statement of reasons.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 22. At the same time I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25. Broadly speaking the purpose of these Amendments which I have put down is to bring this piece of housing legislation into line with practice in planning legislation. I think no one who has been involved either in local government or central Government can be unaware of the great amount of public interest and awareness of what is going on in each community to-day. This interest and awareness is taking place all over the country, and expresses itself either through amenity societies or through residents' or tenants' associations. I am sure this is a matter on which we shall all agree, and with which we are all familiar. I have therefore put down a series of Amendments to place a duty on local authorities to involve local residents in discussions about either potential housing action areas or general improvement areas, and to keep the residents informed. This seems to me entirely in line with all the proposals under planning legislation for the development of local plans in which the active participation of the residents in the community is sought and involved.
It seems to me particularly important in this Part of the Bill on housing action areas, because if we consider the nature of the action that will be taken, we are at once dealing with an area which is by definition an area of bad housing, and in which it is proposed to institute a crash programme. In order for this programme to be effective, it must affect almost every individual in the area, and it seems to me that if they are consulted about the area and the proposals in it, a responsibility is placed on all the individuals in the area. This is particularly

937
important, as so many people will suffer from a multiplicity of social problems. Therefore, this is a consultative process, and will be of real help to local authorities.
In my experience, difficulties in trying to get improvement in general housing improvement areas have often arisen because the people simply do not understand what is going on. Therefore, they almost create difficulties, simply because they do not understand what is happening, and these Amendments are designed to meet this point. I must apologise if they appear on the Marshalled List not quite in the order I would have wished them to appear. Amendment No. 23 is an Amendment to Clause 35 and should really be the first Amendment. This lays a duty on the local authority to involve local residents in discussions about potential housing action areas or general improvement areas.
Amendment No. 24 is, in fact, taken directly from the 1971 Planning Act and applies this to general improvement areas, as does Amendment No. 25. At the same time, it would be helpful to have a monitoring of the system so that local authorities will know how well they are doing it. I hope that this, too, which comes under Amendment No. 25, will mean that the local authorities will be looking continuously to see what progress they have made in these areas, and that they will send a report to the Secretary of State on what they have achieved. As I say, they are all linked Amendments, and I hope they are ones which the Government will view with sympathy. They are designed to help the residents. They are designed to come into line with what is common practice under planning law. It seems to me that they can do nothing but benefit to those whom the housing action areas are designed to help. I beg to move.
7.51 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness for the manner in which she has moved these Amendments. It might be relevant if I said that I think her declared intention of later moving the deletion of Schedule 4 might well be considered at the same time, since it
938
seems to me to be related to the purpose of these Amendments.
BARONESS YOUNG: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Garns-worthy. My Amendment to delete Schedule 4 goes with a further Amendment. I have two Amendments to Schedule 5 which are linked to these, and I quite agree we should take them all together.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 clearly have a common theme. I fancy that they reflect the views of Shelter, and I think probably some associated groups interested in housing. They were not tabled in the other place, and I would say right away that we recognise the good intentions which lie behind them. They are clearly designed to involve the participation of residents in the business of housing action areas, and I want to emphasise the importance the Government attach to securing this end. We think we have approached this in the best possible way; I will try to show how we have done this and the reasons for this approach.
The Committee will appreciate that the very essence of the housing action areas concept is built into Clause 35, which refers to securing "the well-being of the persons for the time being residing in the area", that is to say, the housing action area. This is reinforced by the other provisions of the Bill, which cover conditions attached to improvment grants and undertakings about re-housing. I think I might also mention the Rent Bill, which is intended to give security of tenure to tenants living in furnished accommodation, many of whom may well be in housing action areas. It is against that background that we need to consider these Amendments, and to consider them further in relation to the substantial provisions which are made in the Bill which empower the Secretary of State not only to give guidance to local authorities but also to call for progress reports on housing action areas, as set out in Clause 41. The Bill also lays duties on local authorities to publicise the declaration of housing action areas, to give information about them, to make known where people can make representations and to tell residents

939
in advance of the proposed action programme and of the assistance available for house improvement.
In the Government's opinion, to provide for statutory involvement of residents and/or owners before declaration of a housing action area would be a source of delay in a situation—and I rather think that the noble Baroness will agree with me in this, the more it is thought about—where the need is to reach the point of declaration as quickly as possible, since it is so urgent to get the framework for action firmly established. Housing action areas become effective on declaration, and speed in securing this declaration is the great necessity. The longer the period in which it is formally known that the declaration of a housing action area is under consideration, the greater the opportunity for anti-social landlords to put pressure on tenants to leave so that they can sell off property with vacant possession at a profit at the expense of residents.
The cumulative effect of the Amendments would be to introduce procedures which—and we are quite sure about this—would add substantially to the work and time involved, at the expense of action. and it is questionable whether there would be any benefit to people actually living in the area. The Government have sought to involve residents in the stages after declaration where it matters the most; that is to say, we seek a complete involvement, as complete as possible, in the action programme which follows declaration.
Town and Country Planning Acts differ so much from housing legislation that I cannot see any parallel issue involved here. We are embarking on an enterprise for the advantage of communities which have lost out so much already—they have lost out in amenity improvements—and we are concerned with securing for them some amenity and social progress commensurate with the better standards achieved by so many others. While we seek resident participation, we believe that prior to the declaration stage—and we have thought a great deal about this—there is no advantage, but that there is a very definite risk of delay. After declaration the Bill provides for the full involvement of residents, and that is where the worthwhile contribution is to be made.
940
I repeat that I much appreciate the purpose that lies behind these Amendments. I am very much aware of the anxiety of the noble Baroness, and those who may share her view, to involve the local community. However, I would ask her to accept the view that I have expressed, that we should be placing the interests of the residents at risk if we accepted the Amendments, that in point of fact we have provided for full participation after declaration, and if she is able to accept that I would hope that she would not press these Amendments.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am, of course, grateful to have had from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that explanation of all the detailed consultative procedures there will be once housing action areas are defined. I am bound to say that I do not altogether share his optimism that by not involving the people one will reach a quicker result. I have found from my own experience that it is often true in planning and housing matters that the longest way round really is the shortest way home, although, of course, it does not always appear that way at the beginning. What I think we shall find in many of these areas is that when a local authority moves into one of these areas to sort out a multiplicity of housing problems and social problems a lot of people simply will not understand at all what is going on. A great many of them will be quite put off by public meetings anyway, because they will not like to raise their questions in a hall. They will want somebody on the spot to whom they can go. Many of them will in fact be unable to frame the questions that they wish to ask. They will only know that they are troubled and will wish to have everything explained to them without necessarily knowing how to go about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is quite right in saying that I put down this series of Amendments at the request of Shelter. They seem to me to be eminently reasonable and are designed to achieve something that we all want to achieve by this section of the Bill. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us about that. I was disappointed with the Government's reply because I thought they would say that (hey would look at the Amendments. They may not be correctly drafted that

941
I accept. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would agree to look at this matter in the light of these remarks.
It may well be that housing law differs from that of the Town and Country Planning Acts, but what is undoubted is that if you involve people you are much more likely to get their co-operation. It may well be true, as the noble Lord said, that in these housing action areas there will be problems, and that landlords will put pressure on tenants to leave—although having just gone through the Rent Bill I thought the purpose of that Bill was to prevent precisely that circumstance arising. Therefore, that seems to me a problem that really does not arise under these Amendments. I would ask the noble Lord to consider the spirit of these Amendments, to see whether, on reflection, he agrees with me, that it might well help to get a better housing action area if something on these lines was written into the Bill.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that I was so much aware of her desire to be helpful that I spent quite some time with officials looking at this matter. I wonder whether it may not be more helpful to her if she would come to the Department and have a talk about the details of it. If she was not then satisfied, she could return at a later stage to this point; but I am rather of the opinion that this may be a better way of making progress, in the sense that we could have all the time we needed to look at it and to discuss it.
BARONESS YOUNG: In the light of that offer I will withdraw the Amendment and accept the invitation to meet the noble Lord and to discuss this subject to see whether we can make some progress. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Local authorities for purposes of Part IV]:
8.6 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 44, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to
942
move Amendment No. 26, and speak to Amendment No. 27A and to an Amendment to leave out Schedule 4, which is un-numbered but is at the bottom of page 36 on the Marshalled List. During the Second Reading of the Bill I gave notice that I should be putting down such an Amendment because I believe this to be a matter of important principle. The Bill, as now drafted, gives power to the Greater London Council to intervene to create a housing action area or a general improvement area, if necessary, against the wishes of the London borough affected. This principle reverses the clause as it stood in the original Housing and Planning Bill—perhaps it is not altogether surprising that there should be such a change—but the situation is made worse because it applies not only to housing action areas but also to general improvement areas.
I have been approached by the London Boroughs Association over this matter. They are very concerned at what appears to be a complete reversal of local government policy within London itself. I am bound to say it is a complete reversal of local government relationships as I have always understood them. There is not within local government, the power for one authority to intervene in another authority without the consent of that authority.
When I raised this point at Second Reading I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who replied, and he said that this of course would only be a matter of last resort and it was, in effect, a default power. I understand that point, but I am sure that he will appreciate that, although it is put in as a default power, its effect on a London borough could be precisely as I have described. Not only do I think this to be quite wrong in principle, quite against local government practice, but I also believe that, when it came to the point, it would be quite impractical in securing what I think all of us want to see happen under this Bill.
We all agree with the idea of housing action areas; these closely defined areas of housing stress in which a local authority will make a determined effort to improve the housing conditions for everybody in them. Given that this is what we wish to achieve we must face the fact that a housing action area will be a crisis area calling for a crash programme of repair and rehabilitation. In order to

943
achieve this quickly there will need to be a team of experts all working together, not only the surveyors and the engineers, but many other specialist staff like public health inspectors who will all need to work together as a team. Not only must they work in a practical way to improve houses, but the whole programme will have to be explained to the residents.
I have just been discussing how important I consider this to be in the previous Amendments which I have tabled. I can only emphasise again that, in my experience, in trying to deal with difficult areas of housing the first essential is to secure the co-operation of the residents. The way to secure that co-operation is to have a full explanation of what is going on. Let us imagine an instance of, perhaps, an elderly tenant whose house is in a state of disrepair, who has to move out while the house is being repaired, who does not understand why she should move out and does not want to do so—or indeed does not want the improvements to the house that are to be made. I have met that kind of problem in housing. It seems to me that if you are dealing with such a problem and the two authorities—the G.L.C. and the London Borough—are at logger-heads then I do not see how a housing action area will work out in practice.
There will clearly be the worst possible relationship between the G.L.C. and the London Borough concerned. There will be the least possible co-operation coming from them. There will be maximum confusion to people in the housing action area whom the whole Bill is designed to help. For all these reasons, it seems to me a great mistake to have this power which will never be effective for what it is designed to do. Not only is it wrong in principle that the G.L.C. should be able to have this power but I believe that in the end it would be unworkable. The only sufferers would be the unfortunate residents of a housing action area or a general improvement area. Therefore, I hope that the Government will feel that these arguments have weight and will feel able to accept, if not these Amendments, then the spirit of them, and that they will restore the Housing Bill as it was originally drafted as the Housing and Planning Bill. I beg to move.
8.14 p.m.
BARONESS HORNSBY-SMITH: I apologise to your Lordships for speaking at this late hour, but I wish to support my noble friend in the Amendment as one who has in her time represented one of the Greater London boroughs and who has in another place represented a constituency which was divided between two of the largest of the Greater London boroughs. In seeking this overriding power to be given to the G.L.C, I believe that we should consider the size and the importance of the authorities over which it is sought to impose this sanction.
The London boroughs—none of them small in size or population—are not in-experienced, nor are they staffed at their heads with other than very experienced officers. The elected bodies with large councils are experienced representatives who know their considerable areas and all the problems very closely, and indeed they command budgets which would make great cities in this country envious. I can speak in particular of the London Borough of Bromley and the London Borough of Bexley. the former with 305,000 population and the latter with 217,000. I should like to point out to your Lordships that that means that Bromley is larger than Plymouth, Hull, Cardiff or Leicester and two-and-a-half times the size of Oxford. I do not think that your Lordships will accept so lightly such an imposition on great cities of that size. Too frequently in this enormous conurbation of Greater London people regard the London boroughs as much smaller than they are. If this legislation is imposed, I believe it will be to the great detriment of the co-operation that there has been over many years between the boroughs and Central London—what was first the L.C.C. and is now the G.L.C.—when the legitimately sought to move considerable populations out of London into the Home Counties.
I have experienced it in my former constituency in the two vast housing estates. With co-operation in the services of St. Paul's Cray, Mottingham came out into what is now Bromley borough and was in those days Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District, with the support, co-operation and aid of all the accompanying services which are imposed on the smaller local authority. I hope your Lordships

945
will appreciate that this deeply felt problem is not a political issue. The desire not to have this clause has been unanimously agreed by the London Boroughs Association which the Minister for Housing and Construction in Standing Committee in another place described as "socially dominated". They are unanimously opposed to this additional power which they feel will defeat the co-operation necessary to speed-up the housing programme. It is not therefore a Party issue.
The London boroughs opposition represents a deeply-held resentment that the joint understanding and co-operation that is so vitally necessary in the successful operation of any of these schemes should be replaced by a "Big Brother" attitude providing an overriding sanction, almost as if these great and important boroughs do not know their own areas and were not conscious and alive to their responsibilities in relation to solving the housing problem. They are conscious and alert to the housing need. Indeed, since the war their populations have grown enormously, in many cases through migration from Inner London with families escaping from crowded houses and tenements and moving to what was then called the Home Counties to get a house and a garden for their kids and to be in range of the Green Belt. The attraction and pressure of the South-East has caused headaches for more than one Minister, industrially, commercially and socially. Indeed the G.L.C. is already seeking sites in Chislehurst. I think it must be recognised that although the G.L.C. may take the housing forward, the education and community services place a heavy burden and often override the local priorities of these big and important local authorities.
From my own experience, I know that these incursions make enormous demands on the staff and services of the local authority. To give one instance, 13 new schools had to be provided for the then county of Kent to cope with the population located at the new estate at St. Paul's Cray, together with many other community services. As a result the whole of Kent's school programme for redevelopment, rebuilding and upgrading was put back for several years. But all that is water under the bridge. What is vital is that the 4,000-odd people who moved into that area have grown up in the last 20 years and the children who came 20
946
years ago are now themselves married. I can assure your Lordships that there was not a Saturday on which I do not interview, as a Member of Parliament, that new generation, accepted into the midst of these areas, which was now grown up, married and indeed seeking new accommodation which the local boroughs were doing their utmost to meet.
The London boroughs are not unmindful of the need to provide further housing areas, as is proved by the many new communities that have been put into outer London. What they do resent—and I think rightly—is the imposition of this additional default power, which is the reversal of that policy provided in the original Housing and Planning Bill. It is also of great concern to the London Boroughs Association that the new powers are extended to general improvement areas—a much wider concept, as my noble friend has said, than that provided in the previous Bill. Hitherto they have acted with the co-operation of the local authorities. If, in the judgment of a great and important borough, it is unwise to take such action and they are over-ridden, what sort of co-operation of staff and services can be expected, and at what speed will such a project be proceeded with? A general improvement operation can provide enormous problems—planning, acquisition, compensation, transfer, temporary transfer of people—with all the relevant community problems; and where the good intentions of the G.L.C. and the pretty plans may be evident, the headaches for the existing population and services will fall on the local borough.
The London Boroughs Association are not unmindful of the problem. They have informed the Minister, as I understand it, that they are ready to co-operate. They are ready to take a fresh look at old areas; they are prepared to accept an obligation to submit annual programmes for housing areas—but voluntarily. With good will among the boroughs, the Government and the Greater London Council, I suggest that such co-operative action will be a great deal speedier than if these default powers are imposed. In this Amendment we are not dealing with a group of ill-equipped, modest parish councils; we are dealing with Tower Hamlets, Croydon, Southwark, Brent and, indeed, my old stamping ground of Bexley and

947
Bromley—massive conurbations, of varying political majorities, all united against this infringement of their powers. I most earnestly hope that the Government will think again, because I believe they will get their housing speedier by co-operation than by this clause.
8.23 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, these Amendments are designed to remove the Greater London Council's power to declare housing action areas without the consent of the London boroughs concerned in those instances where the Secretary of State has notified the Greater London Council that, subject to the procedure as laid down in Schedule 4, they may do so. Indeed, these Amendments would restore the position to what it was in the Housing and Planning Bill; namely, that the Greater London Council could declare a housing action area only with borough consent.
There was much discussion in the other place on identical Amendments when this Bill was in Standing Committee, and also at Report stage. The opposition to the default powers was advanced on the grounds—and those grounds have been touched upon again this evening—that default powers were ineffective in practical operation; that comprehensive action could be achieved only if a borough agreed to the G.L.C. declaring a housing action area; that the Greater London Council lacked staff, particularly public health inspectors, of whom there was a shortage anyway; that there was longstanding rivalry and jealousy between boroughs and the Greater London Council; and that default powers for the Greater London Council in housing action areas and in general improvement areas would only exacerbate that jealousy. Doubt was also expressed about the capability of the Greater London Council to take a better view of priorities than the boroughs, and about the relevance of the Greater London Council's strategic role in regard to housing action areas.
Two suggestions have been made by the London Boroughs Association as an alternative to the Greater London Council's default powers. First, that the Secretary of State should put an obligation on the London boroughs to submit to him rolling five-year programmes of housing action
948
areas and general improvement areas, of which they would send a copy to the Greater London Council so that that Council could express its view. Second, that the London Boroughs Association would be prepared to make every effort to persuade any individual borough to accept responsibility for a particular area. The suggestion has also been made that, instead of default powers for the G.L.C, London boroughs should be empowered to declare a housing action area in the area of another London borough with that borough's consent.
In view of the fact that a great deal has been said about the London position, I think I ought to say here that when the issue was put to the vote in the other place—that is, the removal of these powers, which is the effect of these Amendments—only 45 Members voted to remove them whereas 139 Members voted to retain them. The relationship between the Greater London Council and the boroughs is an issue on which set attitudes have often been taken up. I take the point—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith—that this is, though it certainly ought not to be, a Party political issue, and I have little doubt that, in regard to this matter, it matters little what is the political complexion of the Greater London Council. I am quite certain that I should be taking this same stand this evening if it were otherwise than it is.
The Government believe that a more constructive approach to be made to this problem is to look at the question in terms of the problems that have to be solved in London as a whole, and at the resources available to solve them. I think your Lordships will agree that there is a very great deal more to the Greater London Council's role as a strategic housing authority than the influencing of policies over Greater London as a whole, important though that is. It is both desirable and inevitable that they should have the means to implement their view of priorities on housing action areas. Priorities is what the housing action area policy is about, and the Greater London Council already have considerable resources and powers which can and ought to be used.
It should be remembered that the London County Council and the Greater London Council have made a tremendous

949
contribution to slum clearance and new building over the years, and I think that their potential in improvement and rehabilitation should be recognised by those who are concerned, and rightly concerned—I would go so far as to say proudly concerned—with London's problems. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading in another place:
"There is quite enough housing stress in London for which the Greater London Council, the London boroughs and the City all have their work cut out, without quarrelling over who does what".
Furthermore, as the Minister said when the Bill was in Standing Committee—and I quote from column 243:
"At the end of the day it is not [a question of] the susceptibilities between points of power in government at whatever level. It is what is done to enable people and their children to grow up in better housing and urban conditions."
The Government expect the G.L.C. and the London boroughs to work together and carry out a forward programme of housing action areas and general improvement areas as part of a common approach to London's housing problems. We hope they will generally be able to agree on which areas should be declared and by whom, and that whichever authority formally declares them each will work with and assist the other. We welcome the London Boroughs Association's offer to use its good offices in promoting action by boroughs without seeing any advantage in building into the Bill legislative requirements about the submission of a rolling programme. We see the idea of forward planning and discussion as valuable, but these offers, welcome as they always have been, do not destroy the case for the Greater London Council's reserve powers. If agreement is not forthcoming where housing conditions are such that action under Part IV of the Bill is clearly called for, the Secretary of State has made it clear that the powers which the clause gives to the Greater London Council are there to be used.
The procedure covered in Schedule 4 of the Bill provides the maximum opportunity for agreement to be reached. Even after the Secretary of State has notified the Greater London Council that it may declare against borough opposition, the borough is given an opportunity to reconsider its decision and to tackle the area
950
itself. The fact that the Greater London Council itself proposed that this further opportunity should be available cuts down to size the charge that it wants to act as Big Brother.
The Greater London Council has itself said in a letter to the department that, although it considers its reserve power vital, it has no desire to act against the wishes of a London borough and that it hopes to be able to proceed with the full co-operation of the boroughs. The Government share that hope. The Minister described the powers as a back-up and no more, and he added:
"If all the London boroughs are able and willing to carry through work in this field as fully as one wants and hopes—and, I believe, for the most part they will wish to do—there will never be an occasion when the Greater London Council will need to apply to the Secretary of State for the operation of the default powers. … I hope that this situation will obtain. … But I believe that, at the end of the day, such reserve powers to get the job done, if it is not being done, must be in the Bill."
I have dealt at some length with the issue involved here, first, because I recognise the importance of the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her noble friend. I thought that I ought to make it clear that a great deal of attention has been given to the matter. If the London Boroughs Association is speaking on behalf of all the London boroughs and if it is in a position to secure that each and every borough plays its full part and has the resources to carry through the kind of programme the conditions merit, it is clear that the Greater London Council will not have any need to use the default powers in the Bill. I would stress that the powers are included in the Bill as a back-up and nothing more, but I think it very necessary to have them to guard not only against the instance when action may not be taken, but against the occasion when action may not be taken because resources are not available to a particular borough. We ought to preserve a situation in which the vast resources of the Greater London Council could and would, if necessary, be used to the greatest advantage.
8.35 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for the full explanation he has given of this new clause. Of course, I have read the debate in Standing Committee in another

951
place and I should like to assure the Committee that this is not a sequence of Amendments that I am putting down simply on some Party political point. I did not follow all the voting beyond looking at the voting in the Committee, and I assume that the voting figures which the noble Lord gave were on the Report stage, which I regret I have not had an opportunity to look at. However, whatever they may have been, I do not really see that that need affect any decision which we take in Committee to-day. The issue over the relationship between the G.L.C. and the London Boroughs Association was put admirably by my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith who, of course, comes to this House with great knowledge of the complexities of the problems of London government.
Whatever the political complexion of the Greater London Council or the London Boroughs Association, the point at issue is whether or not one local authority ought to have these default powers to act within the boundaries of another without the consent of the authority in question. That seems to me the most important general point at issue on this series of Amendments. I recognise that the Greater London Council has a very good record in house building and, I believe, in rehabilitating old property. My object this evening is in no way to criticise the Greater London Council because that, again, is not the point at issue. Members of the Government and we on this side of the House agree that we want the housing action areas to work. This is a new concept which is intended to deal with areas of housing stress where there are great problems which have remained unresolved for many years and which will remain unresolved unless some action is taken very quickly.
I really do not think that the London boroughs will act more effectively if they feel that there is this spectre of the G.L.C. behind them looking over their shoulder to see whether they are doing their work properly. Again, my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith explained most thoroughly that the London boroughs are large and important local authorities which must know what is best for their areas, if one believes in local authority freedom at all.
I am sure that, as we all wish to achieve some effective action in the hous-
952
ing action areas, the London boroughs will work better if left to get on with it than they will if they have the threat of Greater London Council intervention. After all, they have gone a considerable way to meet the point which the Government have written into the clause. I will not repeat it because the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, himself set out what they are prepared to do. This seems to me to be a sensible compromise. We all hope that there will be co-operation but, in my experience, one is much more likely to get co-operation if there is never a threat at all and if, as we all hope, no occasion ever arises, there is no need to have the power at all. I regret that I found the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, very disappointing. I had hoped that he was going to say that he would look at this matter yet again, because I believe most sincerely that we will not get the best results for housing action areas except by co-operation and agreement, and not with any threat in the background.
8.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I wonder whether I could come in for a moment on this matter. The suggestions which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, of the alternatives put forward by the London Boroughs Association seem to contemplate in their own proposals that there can be a situation when a borough ought to be taking action and does not do so. The first one, the five-year rolling programme to be submitted and the G.L.C. notified of it, is not in that category. But the second proposal which they put forward was that the London Boroughs Association would be prepared to make every effort to persuade any individual authority to accept responsibility for a particular area, but then it goes on to say:
"And the suggestion has also been made that instead of the G.L.C. having default powers the London boroughs themselves should be empowered to declare a housing action area in the area of another London borough."
So even within this sphere the London boroughs themselves are accepting a situation that there should be a default power which should be used; and the suggestion is that instead of it being used by the Greater London Council it should

953
be by either another London borough or by the London boroughs collectively.
The noble Baroness has spoken of these powers as a threat being held over the London boroughs. I suggest to the Committee that this is the wrong way to look at it. It is by no means a threat, it is a policy of last resort; and all of the proposals put forward by the London boroughs I should have thought were the sort of things which would automatically be done if the boroughs felt some action should be taken by a particular borough against whom, if all else failed, the G.L.C.'s default power would be used. If what is being suggested in these alternative proposals would work, then obviously all this will have been done before a request is submitted to the Secretary of State for the default power to be used. If all of this were to be proposed by the London Boroughs Association and it failed, there would demonstrably have been the occasion for the Greater London Council's power to be there and to be used. It may be that it never would be used. So often the main justification for a reserve default power being put in is that the fact that it is there to be used as a last resort is what creates the situation in which it never will have to be used.
My noble friend did not refer to the defects, because he wanted to confine the matter completely to its merits; and it is never a satisfactory point of view to say that an Amendment has drafting defects, because after all if the Government were accepting the principle they are in a better position to remedy drafting defects than are Opposition Members. But the defects of the Amendments—and I do not think that this was the intention of the Amendments—not only remove the power of the G.L.C. to declare a housing action area against the will of a borough, but they remove the power for the Greater London Council to declare it even where the borough is in agreement that this should be done. No one has ever suggested that that should be the position, but that is one of the effects of the Amendment and one of the difficulties about drafting an Amendment to take out part of the situation.
I strongly urge the noble Baroness, Lady Young, further to consider very carefully what my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy has said, because it was the
954
putting of these arguments in another place which persuaded the Members there in such substantial numbers to accept that this was something which, at the end of the day, was meant to help the people of London, was not placing a cudgel in the hands of the G.L.C. to be used against which in a very extreme situation would the London boroughs but was something be what was needed while hoping very much that it never would be used.
BARONESS HORNSBY-SMITH: Would the noble Lord answer one question? He has made great play of the fact that this is a last resort power, but is there anything to prevent the G.L.C, if they opt for their own plans in an area in another borough overriding and taking their plans and powers through against the wishes of the local authority with its own plans for the area?
LORD HUGHES: Is it not the case that they have to apply to the Secretary of State for this? Obviously, the Secretary of State, desirous of having the greatest degree of co-operation between the G.L.C. and the boroughs, will certainly not grant that consent if it is prematurely put forward and is merely attempting to ride roughshod over the wishes of a borough.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am very glad to have the answer to the last question by my noble friend put in those particular terms, but all the same I do not think that it meets the case. I said that I felt that the London boroughs had made a very reasonable offer to meet the point that has been made here by the Greater London Council and the Government. I am not sure that I myself would particularly support the idea that one London borough should insist on housing action areas in another borough. But that is of course a matter for them to agree upon. It is wrong in principle for one local authority, as I said in relation to the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association, to exercise powers in another local authority against the wishes of that authority. I think that principle applies. Nevertheless, I accept that the London boroughs have evidently met and discussed this matter and it is one of the options that they have put up. It reflects their genuine wishes to meet this point. I recognise that what we are talking about is a last resort, a last resort

955
as defined now quite narrowly by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. But the fact is that this Bill is reversing the policy of the 1969 Housing Act whereby there is not this last resort policy with regard to general improvement areas. It is applying it not only to general improvement areas but also to housing action areas. I am bound to say to the Committee, as I said at the beginning, that not only do I believe this to be wrong in principle but I believe ultimately it will not achieve what it is designed to achieve, and it is for that reason that I feel that I cannot withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.50 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 26A:
Page 44, line 35, at beginning insert:
("(3) The Greater London Council may exercise the powers of a local authority under section 35 above with respect to any area in Greater London, but only with the agreement of any local authority in whose district the area or any part of the area is situated; and")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26A. To clarify the point may I say that I spoke to Amendment No. 26 but No. 26A goes with it, so I am moving formally.
LORD HUGHES: I ought to make it perfectly clear that the Government are not happy about these last Amendments. The only reason for not allowing the Committee to be divided on them is that we cannot guarantee that there are sufficient people present to enable the Business to continue, and I do not think it would be the wish of the Committee that we should be counted out at this stage of the proceedings.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for that explanation, but I am sure he will accept that it is not really the duty of the Opposition to keep the Committee in these circumstances. I, too, have no wish to count out the Bill, but I feel that I should be entitled to press an Amendment if I wish to do so.
LORD HUGHES: I was not suggesting that it was the duty of the noble Baroness to do so, but I think she will agree that we had no indication that she would
956
divide on this Amendment, particularly at this time. I wanted to make it clear that the fact that we allowed this Amendment to go into the Bill in no way indicated a change of mind by the Government. The fact that we have allowed this second one to go in as consequential does not mean that we are turning somersaults one after the other.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sure the noble Lord is doing nothing of the sort, but I may say that I gave notice at Second Reading that I would put down this Amendment. So the noble Lord must have been aware that it was one to which I attached importance.
LORD HUGHES: But that is not the only Amendment which the noble Baroness said she would put down, and others have been withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 12, after ("under") insert ("Part II or").
The noble Lord said: Clause 47(4)(a) lists various powers which the Greater London Council need in the housing action areas declared by them; that is, powers which they do not already possess in their own right. Amendment No. 27 adds to the powers of a local authority under Part II of the Housing Act 1957. These enable local authorities to require the repair of unfit houses capable of repair at reasonable cost, to make demolition or closing orders on unfit houses which are beyond repair at reasonable cost, and to purchase condemned houses. The Greater London Council have these powers by virtue of Section 40(2) of the Housing Act 1969 in general improvement areas that they have declared. It was always desired by them, and indeed intended, that they should have them in housing action areas as well. The omission is a defect which the Amendment puts right.
The Amendment has nothing to do with the much debated question as to whether the Greater London Council should be able to proceed to declare a housing action area with borough consent when the Secretary of State notifies them that they may do so. It is concerned with the powers which need to be available to the Greater London

957
Council in housing action areas. Ministers and the Greater London Council have always stressed it is their wish that the Greater London Council and the London boroughs should be able to agree about Greater London Council declarations. The London Boroughs Association have been informed of this Amendment. At the time I am speaking, I believe I am justified in saying they have not commented. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his explanation on this point. Am I right in thinking that what he has said is that the powers provided by this new Amendment are similar to those which already exist under the 1969 Act with regard to general improvement areas, which are now being extended for housing action areas?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Baroness is quite correct.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
After Clause 49.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 27A:
After Clause 49 insert the following new clause—
Declaration of priority neighbourhoods"

HOUSING BILL

  PART VA
  Priority Neighbourhoods
  49A.—(1) Where a report with respect to an area which consists primarily of housing accommodation and which, in accordance with subsection (2) below, is appropriate to be declared a priority neighbourhood, is submitted to the local authority within whose district the area lies by a person or persons appearing to the authority to be suitably qualified (whether or not that person is or those persons include an officer of the authority) and, upon consideration of the report and of any other information in their possession, the authority are satisfied that, having regard to—

  (a) the physical state of the housing accommodation in the area as a whole, and

  (b) social conditions in the area,

  the requirements in subsection (3) below are fulfilled with respect to the area, the authority may cause the area to be defined on a map and by resolution declare it to be a priority neighbourhood.
  (2) For the purposes of this section, an area is appropriate to be declared a priority neighbourhood if, immediately before the
  958
  declaration, it surrounds, or has a common boundary with,—

  (a) a housing action area other than an area in respect of which the Secretary of State has notified the local authority as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of section 36 above and has not yet sent a further notification under subsection (4) of that section; or

  (b) a general improvement area in respect of which a confirmatory resolution, within the meaning of section 28 of the Housing Act 1969, has been passed.

  (3) The requirements referred to in subsection (1) above are—

  (a) that the living conditions in the area are unsatisfactory;

  (b) that it is not, at the date of the resolution, practicable for the local authority to declare the area or any part of it to be a housing action area or a general improvement area or to declare as a housing action area or a general improvement area an area which includes any part of the proposed priority neighbourhood; and

  (c) that it is necessary to secure in the area all or any of the objectives specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 35(2) above and that that need can best be met by declaring the area to be a priority neighbourhood.

  (4) In considering whether to take action under subsection (1) above with respect to any area, a local authority shall have regard to such guidance as may from time to time be given by the Secretary of State, either generally or with respect to a particular authority or description of authority or in any particular case, with regard to the identification of areas suitable to be declared as priority neighbourhoods.
  (5) As soon as may be after passing a resolution declaring an area to be a priority neighbourhood, a local authority shall—

  (a) publish in two or more newspapers circulating in the locality (of which at least one shall, if practicable, be a local newspaper) a notice of the resolution identifying the priority neighbourhood and naming a place or places where a copy of the resolution, of the map on which the neighbourhood is defined and of the report referred to in subsection (1) above may be inspected at all reasonable times:

  (b) take such further steps as may appear to them best designed to secure that the resolution is brought to the attention of persons residing or owning property in the priority neighbourhood and that those persons are informed of the name and address of the person to whom any inquiries and representations concerning any action to be taken with respect to the neighbourhood should be addressed; and

  (c) send to the Secretary of State a copy of the resolution, the map and a copy of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) above and a statement containing such information as the Secretary of State may for the time being require, either generally or with

  959
  with respect to a particular authority or description of authority or in any particular case, to show the basis on which the local authority satisfied themselves that the area concerned was suitable to be declared a priority neighbourhood, having regard to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above and any relevant guidance given under subsection (4) above.

  (6) Section 36 above shall apply in relation to the declaration of a priority neighbourhood with the substitution—

  (a) for any reference to a housing action area of a reference to a priority neighbourhood; and

  (b) for any reference to section 35(4)(c) above of a reference to subsection (5)(c) of this section.

  (7) In this section "housing accommodation" means dwellings, houses in multiple occupation and hostels."
  The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 27A, and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 27B, 27C, 27D, 56A, 58A, 58B and 61A. This is a group of Amendments on priority neighbourhoods which fulfil promises made by the Government at earlier stages of the Bill. They consist of new Clauses 49A, 49B, 49C and 49D. On insertion into the Bill they would make up Part VA. They entail consequential Amendments to Schedules 4 and 5, which are numbered 56A, 58A, 58B and 61A in the List. I suggest it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took these linked Amendments together.
  The length of the Amendments springs from the need to deal with all the procedural details involved, and I shall deal later with the most important procedural matters. But the concept of priority neighbourhoods is the most important point. Also, as I shall seek to show, it is straightforward and can be described quite briefly. As I announced on Second Reading of the Bill, the Government are proposing a new power for local authorities to declare a further kind of area. The name we now prefer for this—and various names have been used from time to time—is "priority neighbourhood". I should like to recall to your Lorsdhips the purpose of this area and to relate the areas to the Amendments now before the Committee.
  Clause 49A is the key provision. Priority neighbourhoods are designed to prevent housing stress from just rippling
  960
  out from the housing action areas and general improvement areas which local authorities have declared: in a phrase, to hold the ring. They will have an important role in discouraging those who might otherwise try to anticipate more intensive later action by local authorities by taking anti-social steps, whether with re-regard to property or tenants, which would merely transfer the problems which authorities have to deal with from one area to the next. They will thus add to the housing action area concept. The declaration of priority neighbourhoods will also pave the way for the future more intensive action which can be taken when that neighbourhood's turn arrives in the authority's overall strategy for tackling bad living conditions in their area. They will be a useful preparation for future declarations of housing action areas and general improvement areas when the needs of these neighbourhoods can be tackled by rehabilitation, environmental improvements and a certain amount of redevelopment—action to which other social programmes, education, amenities, health and welfare services and so on, could be related.
  The ways in which the Amendment seeks to secure these purposes are as follows. Clause 49A provides that priority neighbourhoods may be declared only in respect of an area adjoining or surrounding a housing action area or a general improvement area, and only where it is not practicable for an authority to deal with unsatisfactory living conditions in that area by declaring it a housing action area or a general improvement area right away; that is, an authority has to be satisfied that in the circumstances a declaration of a priority neighbourhood is the best way forward. Two provisions otherwise only available in housing action areas would apply in priority neighbourhoods. First, there are the more specific powers which Clause 42 gave to authorities to acquire land by agreement or compulsorily, including the restriction on the recovery of property subject to a compulsory purchase order. This is secured by means of subsection (1)(d) of Clause 49C. Second, the system of notification of certain transactions in housing property and of notices to quit. The Committee will recall that I outlined this also on Second Reading: the Government's Amendments for this purpose will be tabled for Report.
  Finally, we shall propose that certain conditions attachable to improvement grants (for example the period during which an improved property is to be kept available for letting) will be mandatory in priority neighbourhoods, as in housing action areas, as opposed to being discretionary elsewhere. As I mentioned earlier, the Amendments are very largely concerned with procedures the procedures (concerning, for example, a report on the area, publicity, the giving of information, the powers of the Secretary of State, and the relevant authorities for the purposes of priority neighbourhoods) all follow the provisions in respect of housing action areas, provisions which have been in the Bill since it began its passage in this Parliament. Such differences as there are spring from the fact that the special powers in a priority neighbourhood are to be more limited than in an housing action area. If any of your Lordships should wish me to go into procedural matters further, I shall of course do my best to answer any particular points which may be raised.
  I commend these Amendments to this Committee. In doing so, I should like to acknowledge that they follow up the type of approach advocated in the Milner-Holland and Layfield Reports. They also take further the message of the D.O.E. Circular 50/72 and the last Administration's White Paper The Next Priorities. I trust that your Lordships will agree to the Amendments as a useful way of promoting, on a statutory basis, ways of dealing with problems of housing stress and the need for future action which we have left untackled for too long. I beg to move.
  9.3 p.m.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his explanation of these very long new clauses, and for the notes on these clauses which he sent me which reached me over the week-end. This is a new concept which is being introduced at this stage. The noble Lord was able to explain the principle of it at Second Reading, but it is something which has not appeared in any discussion of the Bill so far. I am not clear what the real difference is between a general improvement area and a priority neighbourhood. If I understand the point correctly, it is that a priority neighbourhood will always be
  962
  adjacent to a housing action area, but what happens on the edge of the priority neighbourhood?
  There is a real danger that the effectiveness of a housing action area, which is a relatively small area in which there will be a crash programme in which all the resources of the local authorities will be turned to improve the housing, will be diluted by having it extended into a priority neighbourhood. I am not in principle against trying to do more for older houses wherever they may be. The practical facts of life are such that the improvements of properties are expensive to carry out. Not only are they expensive in money but, equally important, they require a great many specialist staff such as public health inspectors, surveyors, builders and the social services to support them. Of course if these are spread over a larger area, by definition they will be less effective in the smaller area. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, could tell us how he sees the use of staff working in what is a larger area. He would agree it would be a pity if the concept of the housing action area, which is accepted as being such a valuable one, were to be diluted because it was being spread over a rather large area instead of concentrating resources on one or several small selected areas.
  The other point I should like to raise is the same as the one I raised on housing action areas. This is with regard to consultation with residents. It seems to me that precisely the same point would arise in priority neighbourhoods. When we have our meeting in the Department we might consider consultation with the residents because in this connection it will be just as important.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me an opportunity of elaborating. There can be nothing but advantage in getting more on the Record. Earlier when I was speaking, I hesitated to go into too much detail because I realised that I was speaking at some length, but the noble Baroness has given me cause. Perhaps I can best reply by giving more detailed information on the clauses which are involved in the Amendments to which I have spoken.
  Clause 49A provides for the declaration of priority neighbourhoods by local authorities. As with housing action areas,

  963
  they must have received a report compiled by suitably qualified persons, who need not necessarily be local authority officers, and they must have regard to both physical and social factors. But a priority neighbourhood must adjoin or surround either a housing action area or a general improvement area. The authority must be satisfied that living conditions are unsatisfactory, that it is impracticable to declare the area as a housing action area or a general improvement area, and that the need to secure the improvement of the housing accommodation in the potential priority neighbourhood, the wellbeing of its residents and the proper, effective management and use of that accommodation, can best be met by declaring it as a priority neighbourhood. Declarations must be advertised and notified to the Secretary of State as with housing action areas. The Secretary of State has powers under Clause 35 to cancel a housing action area declaration which will also apply to a priority neighbourhood declaration.
  Clause 49B provides for housing action areas, general improvement areas, to be converted into or incorporated in property neighbourhoods either wholly or in part. Clause 49C provides that the housing action area provisions; that is, the duration, reduction, duty to inform the Secretary of State of action taken, acquisition of land and provision of housing by local authorities, and the application of certain procedural provisions of the Housing Acts, shall apply in priority neighbourhoods as in housing action areas. Clause 49D provides that local authorities for the purposes of priority neighbourhoods will be the same as for housing action areas and general improvement areas; that is, the councils of districts and London boroughs, the Common Council, and in the circumstances provided for in Schedule 4 the Greater London Council.
  The noble Baroness has indicated that she would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter, and indeed we shall be very pleased to have consultation with her about it. The concept of priority neighbourhoods was foreshadowed in the Second Reading in another place and in Committee there. If the noble Baroness is content with what I have had to say about the individual clauses, and would
  964
  leave it for us to discuss when she comes to the Department, it may well be that we can make progress.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I do not wish in any way to prolong this discussion. I am not altogether happy about this concept but at this stage of the Committee I should like to read what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said and to take up the opportunity to have this meeting and to discuss it further. I should say to him that my only worry about it is that we might spoil the concept of the housing action area by spreading the staff too thinly on the ground. But this is a matter to which we can always return at Report stage.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  9.16 p.m.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 27B.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 49 insert the following new clause:
  Incorporation into priority neighbourhoods of general improvement areas, housing action areas, or parts thereof.
  49B(1) If a local authority propose, by a resolution under section 49A above, to declare as a priority neighbourhood an area which consists of or includes land which, immediately prior to the declaration, is comprised—

  (a) in a housing action area declared under section 35 above, or

  (b) in a general improvement area declared under Part II of the Housing Act 1969,

  they shall indicate on the map referred to in section 49A above the land which is so comprised (in this section referred to as "the relevant land").
  (2) Subject to the following provisions of this section; with effect from the date on which such a resolution as is referred to in subsection (1) above is passed, the relevant land shall be deemed (according to its status) either—

  (a) to have ceased to be a housing action area by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 38(3) above or, as the case may be, to have been excluded from the housing action area by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 39(1) above; or

  (b) to have ceased to be a general improvement area, or, as the case may be, to have been excluded from the general improvement area by virtue of a resolution under section 30(1) of the Housing Act 1969 passed on that date and approved by the Secretary of State.

  (3) If the Secretary of State notifies the local authority concerned under section 36 above,

  965
  as that section applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods by virtue of section 49A(6) above, that the area declared by them to be a priority neighbourhood is no longer to be such an area, subsection (2) above shall be treated as never having applied in relation to the relevant land.
  (4) If the Secretary of State notifies the local authority concerned under section 36 above, as that section applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods by virtue of section 49A(6) above, that any land which—

  (a) is within the area declared by the authority to be a priority neighbourhood, and

  (b) consists of or includes any of the relevant land,

  is to be excluded from the priority neighbourhood, subsection (2) above shall be treated as never having applied in relation to so much of the relevant land as is comprised in the land so excluded.")—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 27C.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
  Application to Priority Neighbourhoods of certain provisions of Part IV
  49C.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the following provisions of Part IV of this Act shall apply in relation to a priority neighbourhood as they apply in relation to a housing action area, namely,—

  (a) section 38 (duration of housing action areas);

  (b) section 39 (reduction of housing action area);

  (c) section 41 (duty to inform Secretary of State of action taken);

  (d) section 42 (acquisition of land in housing action areas);

  (e) section 43 (provision, improvement etc. of housing accommodation by local authorities); and

  (f) section 46 (application of certain provisions of Housing Acts).

  (2) In the application, by virtue of sub-section (1) above, of the provisions of Part IV of this Act specified in that subsection—

  (a) for any reference in those provisions to a housing action area there shall be substituted a reference to a priority neighbourhood; and

  (b) any reference in any of those provisions to any other provision of Part IV of this Act shall be construed as a reference to that other provision as it applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods.

  (3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, in the application, by virtue of subsection (1) above, of section 38 above—

  (a) for the reference in subsection (1) of that section to section 35(1) above there
  966
  shall be substituted a reference to section 49A(1) above; and

  (b) for any reference in subsection (2) or subsection (5) of that section to 2 years there shall be substituted a reference to 5 years.

  (4) A local authority may not exercise the power conferred by section 39 above, as applied by virtue of subsection (1) above, in relation to a priority neighbourhood unless the land which would be left in the priority neighbourhood after the exclusion of the land in question—

  (a) would then constitute an area which, having regard to subsection (2) of section 49A above, would be appropriate to be declared a priority neighbourhood, or

  (b) would then surround or have a common boundary with an area which, immediately before the priority neighbourhood was declared, constituted or formed part of a housing action area or a general improvement area; or

  (c) would then consist of or include land which, immediately before the priority neighbourhood was declared, formed part of a housing action area or a general improvement area.")—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY I beg to move Amendment No. 27D.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
  Local authorities for the purposes of Part VA
  49D.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the local authorities for the purposes of this Part of this Act are the councils of districts and London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London.
  (2) Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 to this Act, as modified by subsection (3) below, the Greater London Council may exercise the powers of a local authority under section 49A above with respect to any area in Greater London.
  (3) In its application by virtue of subsection (2) above, Schedule 4 to this Act shall have effect as if for the words "section 35", in each place where they occur, there were substituted the words "section 49A".
  (4) In relation to, and to any premises in, an area which, in accordance with Schedule 4 to this Act as applied by virtue of subsection (2) above, has been declared a priority neighbourhood by the Greater London Council, any reference to a local authority in—

  (a) sections 49A to 49C above, or

  (b) any provision of Part IV of this Act specified in section 49A(6) or section 49C above, as that provision has effect by virtue of either of those sections, or

  (c) the provisions of the Housing Act 1957 applied in relation to priority neighbourhoods by section 46(1) above, as that section has effect by virtue of section 49C(1)(f) above,

  967
  shall be construed, except in so far as the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Greater London Council, to the exclusion of any other council.").—(Lord Carnsworthy.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 50 agreed to.
  Clause 51 [General provisions relating to applications for grants]:
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 48, line 36, at end insert—
  ("and the applicant for the grant is, or is the personal representative of, the person who made the earlier application").
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to correct a technical defect in the Bill. As at present drafted, a local authority would be prohibited except in certain circumstances, specifically provided for elsewhere in the Bill, from entertaining a grant application if the relevant works are or include works which have already been the subject of a prior grant approval either under Part I of the 1969 Act or Part VI of this Bill. While this provision is reasonable for so long as the applicant or, after his death, his personal representatives retain the requisite interest in the land under Clause 51(3), it is considered wrong to prohibit an authority from entertaining an application from any other person who subsequently acquires a qualifying interest in the land, not least because an approval cannot be inherited by the new owner. The Amendment would remove this limitation. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 52 to 57 agreed to.
  Clause 58 [Amount of improvement grant]:
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 54, leave out line 24 and insert—
  ("determined by reference to the amount of that grant and the rate at which it was made, namely, twice the amount of the grant where that rate was one-half and one and one-third times the amount of the grant where (by virtue of the Housing Act 1971) that rate was 75 per cent").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29. The purpose of this Amendment is to correct a technical defect in the Bill. For some two years the improvement grant was at the rate of 75
  968
  per cent. Before that it was 50 per cent. and it is back to 50 per cent. The effect of this Amendment is to put people who had the benefit of 75 per cent. grant in the same position as those who were on 50 per cent. This is where the reference to twice the amount of the grant, and the reference in the Amendment to one and one-third times the amount of the grant is to put both types of grant recipients in the same position. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 59 agreed to.
  Clause 60 [Approval of application for intermediate grant conditional dwelling attaining a particular standard]:
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 55, line 30, at end insert—
  ("(bb) that it conforms with such requirements with respect to thermal insulation as may for the time being be specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section; and").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 30. May I speak to Amendment No. 31 at the same time. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that one of the conditions to be fulfilled before an application for an intermediate grant is approved should be that the dwelling is adequately insulated against heat loss. In Standing Committee B of the House of Commons Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg moved an Amendment to Clause 54 which was designed to probe the Government's intentions regarding thermal insulation. He withdrew his Amendment upon being informed that the special issue of thermal insulation was under active consideration.
  Subsequently, a decision was taken to the effect that for both intermediate grants and improvements grants it should be a condition of payment that the dwelling which is the subject of the application should have its roof space adequately insulated against heat loss. To give effect to this decision, it is necessary to amend Clause 60 so as to add thermal insulation to the list of requirements in sub-section (2) which must be satisfied before a dwelling shall be taken to attain the full standard for immediate grant purposes. It is not necessary to amend the Bill in order to secure the same effect in relation to improvement grants. That

  969
  can be done administratively under the provisions of Clause 55. I beg to move.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is able to move this Amendment and to fulfil the promise which was given to my honourable friend Mr. Finsberg in another place.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 31.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 56, line 8, at end insert—
  "(aa) to conform in every respect with the requirements referred to in paragraph (bb) of that subsection, or".—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 61 to 67 agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Power of local authorities to impose grant conditions]:
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 32.
  Page 62, line 16, leave out ("they may") and insert ("they").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, and at the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 33. These two Amendments would have the effect of making it obligatory upon a local authority to impose the grant conditions which are set out in Clause 68 in all cases of dwellings improved with the aid of an intermediate grant, an improvement grant or a repairs grant which are within a housing action area or a general improvement area on the date of grant approval, subject to the exclusion from this condition of those cases which are specifically exempted by subsection (3) of the clause.
  The Government indicated during the Second Reading debate and Committee stage in the other place that they were proposing to introduce an Amendment designed to achieve in housing action areas and general improvement areas the effect of that which is suggested by the Amendment. It is not appropriate to make these Clause 68 conditions mandatory in all cases of tenanted dwellings, regardless of whether or not they fall within one of the priority areas. For example, it would be inappropriate to
  970
  attach to a grant conditions relating to an improved dwelling having to be let on a regulated tenancy or a Part VI contract when that dwelling was occupied by an agricultural worker in a tied dwelling, since such a person does not and cannot have a regulated tenancy or a Part VI contract.
  Housing action areas, general improvement areas and special protection areas will, by their nature, be areas in which the retention of privately rented accommodation will be of special significance and for which there will exist machinery which is capable of monitoring the observance of grant conditions. Outside these areas the imposition of these conditions should be left to the decision of local authorities in the light of the needs of the district or area concerned, and in the light of the authority's resources for the policing of conditions. Limited to these special areas, the Amendment would have an immediate impact upon the relationship between the amount of public money expended on improvement works and (a) the returns in terms of better housing conditions for those people whom the Government are most concerned to help and (b) the rent payable for those improved dwellings. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  9.20 p.m.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 62, line 17, after ("below") insert ("the authority may and, in the case of a dwelling or dwellings situated in an area which, on the date on which the application is approved, is a housing action area or a general improvement area, they shall").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 69 to 74 agreed to.
  Clause 75 [Grants restricted to applicant and his personal representatives]:
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 68, line 27, (in the fifth line of paragraph (b) of Clause 75(2) leave out ("at such rate as may be prescribed").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34 and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 35. These are technical Amendments, the effect of which will be to bring Clause 75 into line

  971
  with the remainder of the Bill by providing that instalments of grant repayable thereunder shall carry interest at the rate of interest for the time being fixed by subsection (2) of Section 171 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the purposes of the enactments specified in subsection (1) of that section. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 68, line 29 (the last line of paragraph (b) of Clause 75(2)) at end insert ("at the rate for the time being fixed by subsection (2) of section 171 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the purposes of the enactments specified in subsection (1) of that section").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 76 to 98 agreed to.
  LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 36:
  After Clause 98 insert the following new clause:
  ".—(1) No notice to quit issued in respect of a tenancy subject to the protection of Part I or Part VI of the 1968 Rent Act shall be valid unless it is issued on such a form as shall be prescribed.
  (2) The prescribed form of a notice to quit issued in pursuance of subsection (1) above shall contain upon its face in letters no smaller than the text of the rest of the notice to quit—

  (a) the name and address of the landlord of the premises in respect of which the notice to quit is issued, and

  (b) the name of the tenant to whom the notice to quit is issued, and an exact indication of the premises to which the notice to quit applies, and

  (c) a form of words as may be prescribed outlining the rights and obligations once the notice to quit has been issued of the landlord who has issued the notice to quit and of the tenant to whom the notice to quit is to be issued, and

  (d) the address of the Rent Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the premises referred to in the notice to quit are situated.

  (3) The expression 'prescribed' in subsections (1) and (2) above means prescribed regulations made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State for the Environment which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 36 which stands in my
  972
  name and that of my noble friend Lord Melchett. This Amendment arises from Amendments that my noble friend Lord Melchett and I moved on the Committee stage of the Rent Bill, when we both spoke of the need to provide certain basic information when notices to quit were served on tenants. Those Amendments were withdrawn on my noble friend Lord Shepherd making a promise that on this Bill an Amendment would be moved to accept the principle of the Amendments which, we then proposed, and I am delighted to see that at a slightly later stage in this Bill a Government Amendment will be moved by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy. Of course I do not intend to press my Amendment and I shall give way to his, which comes a little further down on the Marshalled List.
  Since this is an opportunity to speak about this rather different area of this Bill, may I briefly tell your Lordships why we took the initiative in the other Bill in putting forward an Amendment of this kind? It is because, as noble Lords will probably know, notices to quit are served on tenants by landlords—or more frequently by landlords' solicitors. They are very frightening documents. They peremptorily order a tenant to deliver up the possession of his tenancy within something like 28 days, while of course the law under the Rent Act does not require them to do any such thing.
  Notices to quit in this form have two effects. On the one hand, they cause great distress to tenants who frequently, in the experience of advice bureaux, housing centres and law centres, come clutching these documents believing that they mean what the say. They are then advised that they do not, and that a tenant has rights under the Rent Act either to have a fixed tenancy or to go to the rent tribunal. But frequently, in what numbers nobody can state, tenants are induced by such a notice—and no doubt by other pressures from landlords—to accept them at their face value, and they believe that they are required to move. My noble friend and I had in mind that basic information should be given on notices to quit so that distress and indeed misinformation should no longer be a source of concern and prejudice. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the principle of this Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend will speak to the Government

  973
  Amendment at this stage, but having raised the issue and the Amendment having been moved, I beg to move.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: Let me say right away that the principle of this Amendment is accepted by the Government. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said at the Committee stage of the Rent Bill that we would see whether we could find a way of implementing that principle. I am pleased to say that we have tabled an Amendment to introduce a new clause after Clause 107. It may well be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss it now.
  As I have said, the new clause is introduced as a result of the undertaking given in this House on the Rent Bill to look at the possibility of providing that notices to quit should be in writing and should contain certain particulars which would be of use to the tenant on whom the notice had been served. The Government have considered carefully the best way to achieve this, and it has been decided that in the interests of simplicity and flexibility the best method is the amendment of the existing provisions regarding notices to quit. Section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 and Section 131 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 provide that no notice to quit premises let as residential accommodation shall be valid unless it is given not less than four weeks before the date on which it is to take effect.
  The new clause inserts into this provision the words set out in subsection (1). It provides that any notice to quit shall be in writing and shall contain such information as may be prescribed. The new subsection (2) to be added to Section 16 and Section 131 provides that the word "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State by Statutory Instrument, subject to Negative Resolution in either House. It is clearly sensible to leave the details of such information to subordinate legislation which can easily be varied to take account of any subsequent changes in the law relating to landlord and tenant. The new subsection (3) provides that the regulations may make different provision in relation to different lettings and different circumstances. This is to allow for the fact that the information which is applicable to one class of tenant may not be applicable to another class. The subsection therefore allows for different
  974
  information to suit different circumstances.
  Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the provisions of the clause shall not apply in relation to a notice to quit given before the day appointed for the coming into operation of the provisions. This is necessary to make it clear that notices to quit which are running under existing law (and which may in the case of a furnished tenancy have been suspended by a rent tribunal for any period up to six months) are not made invalid by virtue of these provisions.
  I hope that explanation will satisfy my noble friends Lord Gifford and Lord Melchett. We have honoured the undertaking given, and I hope that the new clause to be inserted after Clause 107 will commend itself to the Committee as fully meeting the points that have been raised.
  9.30 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: I do not want at this stage to enter into further discussion with my noble friend about the sort of information that will ultimately be prescribed for such notices. I am sure he will accept that the kind of considerations which have been suggested in this Amendment and in previous Amendments to the Rent Bill proposed by myself and my noble friend, will be borne in mind when it is decided precisely what sort of information and in what form shall be contained in such notices. Obviously, one hopes that the regulations will be published and passed at an early date. If there is to be some delay, let it be used in consultations with bodies like the National Association of Citizens Bureaux, so that the information which goes into these regulations is what is necessary, and what is thought to be necessary by those who have to deal with these problems. I am sure it goes without saying that such consultations and considerations will be borne in mind.
  Having said that, and before withdrawing my Amendment, may I add that even for someone who has sometimes expressed cynicism about the procedures of the House of Lords, to have the Amendment to be moved by my noble friend passing through this House is a rare pleasure. On the Second Reading of the Rent Bill, my noble friend said in terms that he felt the sort of considerations we had in mind were not

  975
  necessary for legislation, certainly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. A great effort was made to provide my noble friend and his colleagues with such evidence. A large number of organisations wrote in, the Government were impressed, and to-morrow I propose to write to those organisations to tell them they have had a hand in making an important change in the law. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 99 and 100 agreed to.
  Clause 101 [Hostels provided by housing authorities in Scotland]:
  9.33 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 92, line 20, leave out ("and 34") and insert ("32 and 34").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, which is simple. There is already provision in the Bill for meeting hostel revenue deficits incurred by registered housing associations, local authorities and New Town Corporations in England and Wales, but not for housing authorities in Scotland. This Amendment corrects this by making hostel deficit grants under Clause 32 available to Scottish housing authorities. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 102 and 103 agreed to.
  Clause 104 [Raising of rateable value limits for enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act, 1967]:
  BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 94, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(3) For the purposes of this section, the provisions of section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall apply until the expiry of a period of two years commencing with the date of the passing of this Act.").
  The noble Baroness said: The Committee will know that this Clause 104 was amended in Committee in another place, to increase the level of the rateable values at which it was possible for a leaseholder to obtain his enfranchisement. This Amendment to this clause seeks to meet the difficulty which I think may arise, and
  976
  is exactly in line with a similar clause in the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act. Therefore, I hope that the Government will view it sympathetically.
  It has been put to me that under the 1967 Act it was possible for freeholders to have a management scheme provided that they chose to apply for one within two years of the passing of that Act. Of course, the effect of management schemes is to enable the freeholder of a large estate to maintain the estate, and to provide for the upkeep and repair of it as a unit. This seems to me such a very desirable thing to achieve that my Amendment seeks to include in this Bill a similar provision whereby the freeholder would be able to have a management scheme within two years of the passing of this Bill. It may not be correctly drafted, and I shall quite understand if it is not, but I hope very much that the Government will accept it, because I should have thought this is a principle they would support. I beg to move.
  LORD HUGHES: I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment, but I hope to be able to assure the noble Baroness in what I propose to say. As she has stated, the clause took its present form as the result of an Opposition Amendment in another place. Although this Amendment was passed against the Government's advice, the Government have decided to accept the principle underlying it. It should, however, be noted that the Amendment, as the noble Baroness suspected, is defective in drafting. For example, it fails to protect the rights of any leaseholder whose house was within the original rateable value limits but in consequence of revaluation may be outside the new ones. Moreover, in introducing a variation of rights according to the date of granting of the tenancy, it employs a date which has no connection with leasehold reform legislation. The Government hope to be in a position to put down Amendments at Report stage to correct these defects.
  The resuscitation of Section 19 is another matter, however. The Government fully appreciate the risk that this extension of enfranchisement rights of tenants of houses not previously subject to the Act could mean that estates, perhaps well managed estates, not formerly affected would be broken up, and that if

  977
  management schemes are not possible for such estates the result could in some cases be a general decline in management standards. The possibility of reviving Section 19 was, therefore, reviewed at once. This revival, however, would not, unfortunately, be the simple matter which the Amendment suggests. It would have to be limited to estates whose landlords were unable to apply for certificates during the period that Section 19 was in force before. To do otherwise might give the section retrospective effect over properties already enfranchised, possibly resulting in the imposition of obligations on house owners who had bought their freeholds at prices reflecting the absence of any such obligations.
  The Amendments necessary to apply Section 19 within the limited field where it is now needed without adverse retrospective effects could be too complex for drafting in the limited period available, and with the very heavy burden already placed on the draftsman by the Amendments already essential to the Bill. We will, however, look at this matter again before Report stage to see whether anything can be done. The Government, however, do not intend to let the matter drop. If it should prove to be too difficult to draft the necessary Amendments, the Government would propose to take suitable legislative action at the first convenient date in the future. I hope, therefore, in view of these two ways in which we are looking at the matter, the noble Baroness will be prepared at this stage to withdraw her Amendment.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his concluding remarks. I entirely accept that this is probably not correctly drafted, and I certainly did not intend it to have a retrospective effect. This I put down to the defects of drafting, not to the intention of the Amendment. What I think is important is that the purpose of the Amendment should be achieved and that it should apply on this Bill, because this is the Bill which increases the rateable values from April 1, 1973. I believe that it is most important that the great estates, particularly in London, should be able to have these management schemes, and I hope very much that the Government will be able to bring forward a suitable Amendment on Report. What I feel is that it would be a very difficult thing to
  978
  leave that to further legislation. This is the kind of thing that can be lost sight of if it is left in that rather indefinite situation. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to draft an Amendment in time for Report.
  I shall look again at the drafting of this and take advice to see whether I can do anything from my side to improve it, because I think that we are both in agreement that there should be such a provision under this clause for all the environmental reasons that are very familiar to us all. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.41 p.m.
  BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 38A:
  Page 94, line 32, at end insert—
  After subsection (4) of section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
  "( ) At any time the tenant may take the action provided in Schedule (reduction of rateable value in case of certain improvements) to this Act, for his rateable value to he adjusted and in all such cases the agreed rateable value or that determined by the Court or District Valuer shall be the rateable value for the purposes of that Act."
  The noble Baroness said: In the light of what has happened, this Amendment may prove to be unnecessary, but its purpose must be quite clear. It is to help a tenant whose rateable value has been increased as a result of improvements that he himself has made to his house, and which would mean that he would be just outside the terms of the Bill as drafted. It always seems unfair if a tenant outside of London, for example, now finds that the rateable value of his house has gone up to £751 as a consequence of the improvements that he has made to the house since April 1, 1973, and therefore he is not able to enfranchise himself, as would have been the intention behind this clause. This Amendment seeks to put right this position and to allow him to enfranchise himself if he wishes to do so. I beg to move.
  LORD HUGHES: The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the rights of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act to tenants of houses which are outside the rateable value limits laid down by the Act, but which would have been within them had not the tenants, or

  979
  their predecessors in title, undertaken improvements which would have the effect of raising the rateable values of the houses.
  This complex Amendment, which would affect the courts and the valuation service as well as the Leasehold Reform Act, was put down very late, as the noble Baroness knows, and only reached the Department on Friday morning. In the circumstances, it has not been possible to give it the study essential to a proposal to amend the law. Even such examination as has been possible in the time allowed shows that in its immediate objective the provision, besides being unacceptable in principle, is defective. I know from past experience how easy it is to get a defective Amendment when the subject is simple; when the subject is as complex as this, it would be an absolute miracle if those without the benefit of skilled draftsmen got it right at first shot, so that is not meant as a criticism of the noble Baroness. For example, the Amendment makes no reference to the appropriate day for the house in question, although improvements undertaken after the appropriate day cannot affect the rateable value for the purposes of the Act, and it leaves uncertain the question of whether the reference rateable value in Section 4 of the Act is to be adjusted together with that in Section 1.
  The Government are well aware that some leaseholders unintentionally deprived themselves of the rights they might have had, under the Act as it now stands, by undertaking before the appropriate day improvements that raised the rateable value of their dwellings above what later became the limits for the purposes of the Act. As the noble Baroness knows, the previous Administration were also aware of that situation. The need to deal with this matter has been removed by the Amendment introduced in another place. The Government intend to accept the principle of this Amendment, and at a later stage hope to introduce Amendments to remove defects in the drafting of the clause as it now stands. When I say "in principle", I mean that the Government accept the principle of the Amendment made in another place.
  BARONESS YOUNG: In order to make it clear, is the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, saying that the Government accept the
  980
  principle of Clause 144 but not the principle of this Amendment?
  LORD HUGHES: That is right. We hope at a later stage to introduce Amendments to remove defects in the drafting of the clause as it now stands. The effect of the Amendment is to raise the rateable value limits operative under the Act to levels permitting enfranchisement of houses far more valuable than those enfranchisable at present. It may therefore be expected that tenants whose improvements raise the rateable values of their houses above the old limits will now find their houses well within the new ones. If the intention of the noble Baroness is to permit enfranchisement by tenants whose improvements have brought their houses outside the new limits, I must oppose even the principle of a proposal which would enable the affluent to render themselves more affluent.
  The Government's reasons for opposing the Amendment carried in another place were that a house outside the present rateable value limits would be so valuable as to render enfranchisement attractive for reasons of financial gain rather than domestic security, particularly as persons able to afford the leases of such houses would have been able to afford freeholds of smaller houses. How much more would this be the case with a person able to afford the lease of a house the rateable value of which approached the new limits, who then improved the house so as to take it beyond them. Since any such houses unimproved could always by definition be well equipped with amenities, improvements in these cases would often be designed to render the house suitable for uses other than as the tenant's home; for instance, by subletting parts of it. This makes it all the more likely that in such cases enfranchisement would be sought for reasons of gain. For these reasons, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to apologise for tabling the Amendment at a late hour, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will understand that with the present difficulties of trying to read all the material one cannot act as quickly as one would like. I am sorry that he finds the Amendment unacceptable in principle. Again, I accept that the drafting may not be right but I think it could

  981
  well meet a gap in Clause 104. However, I shall study with care what the noble Lord has said and I shall, if I consider it necessary, return to the matter again on report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 104 shall stand part of the Bill?
  BARONESS YOUNG: I wish to raise two points on the Question, That the Clause stand part. As has been said, the clause was amended in the Committee stage of another place. Its intention was that people whose rateable values were £750 outside London and £1,500 in Greater London should be able to enfranchise themselves. These rateable values were to date from April 1, 1973, when the new rateable values came in. They were not to be restrospective to 1965. The effect of the increased rateable values was to be an increase of two and-a-half times in rateable values as reflected by revaluation between the years 1965 and 1973, in line with the fair rent legislation.
  It has been put to me that the clause as drafted is ambiguous on this point. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that the Government would be tabling an Amendment. I should like an assurance from him that any Amendment would clarify the situation. Clearly, it would make a great deal of difference if it were thought that these rateable values could be retrospective to 1965 values, and not to 1973 values. That is the first point I wish to clarify, because it is the intention of those who moved the Amendment in Committee in another place that they should apply to current rateable values only.
  The second point I wish to make is that, had there been time, I would have put down an Amendment to meet a point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, raised in speaking to my last Amendment, No. 38A, when he said that he felt that under this Amendment a number of people could make an enormous profit at the expense of the freeholder. I intend to move an Amendment at the next stage of the Bill to the effect that those in Greater London whose houses have a value between £1,000 and £1,500 should be entitled to purchase their freehold only at market value and
  982
  not under the special terms that are provided in the 1967 Act. I felt it was only right to give notice of that at this stage, and to apologise for not being able to get it down in time for the Committee stage.
  LORD HUGHES: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for stating that intention. As she said, we are working under very acute difficulties at the present time; and, as I say, I am very grateful to her. So far as her question is concerned, the Amendment which the Government propose to put down for the next stage will take care of the point to which she referred.
  Clause 104 agreed to.
  Clauses 105 and 106 agreed to.
  Clause 107 [Disclosure of landlord's identity]:
  9.52 p.m.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 95, line 2, leave out from ("within") to ("the") in line 3 and insert ("the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he receives").
  The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 at the same time as Amendment No. 39. These three Amendments fulfil an undertaking given by the Government in another place and clarify the effect of an Amendment that was accepted there. Amendment No. 39 is a simple clarificatory Amendment to establish the precise day on which the period of 21 days begins before the end of which the person asked the landlord's name and address must give it. A provision creating an absolute offence must define with the maximum precision the circumstances in which an offence is committed.
  Amendment No. 40 replaces the existing subsection (2). It first provides that where, under subsection (1), the tenant has obtained the name and address of his landlord, and the landlord is a company, and the tenant makes a further written request for information under this sub-section, the landlord shall within 21 days supply in writing the name and address of every director and of the secretary of the company. It then provides that, for

  983
  "address", whether sought under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), the address given, for a person, shall be the place of abode or place of business, and, for a company, the registered office; that a request under subsection (2) shall be duly made if it is made to an agent of the landlord or to the person who demands the rent; and that any such agent or person must forward the request as quickly as possible to the landlord. Finally, it provides that a person who without reasonable excuse fails to do this, or a landlord who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the request, shall be guilty of an offence under this clause, and liable to the same penalty as a person who fails to comply with the original request for the landlord's name and address.
  Amendment No. 41 is consequential. I would say that linked also with it is Government Amendment No. 67 which inserts in Schedule 11—Minor and Consequential Amendments—the Amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1962 in the present subsection (2). Schedule 11 is the proper place for this provision. I beg to move Amendment No. 39.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) In any case where—

  (a) in response to a request under sub-section (1) above, a tenant is supplied with the name and address of the landlord of the premises concerned; and

  (b) the landlord is a body corporate; and

  (c) the tenant makes a further written request to the landlord for information under this subsection,

  the landlord shall within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he receives the request under this subsection, supply to the tenant a written statement of the name and address of every director and the secretary of the landlord.
  (2A) Any reference in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above to a person's address is a reference to his place of abode or his place of business or, in the case of a company, its registered office.
  (2B) A request under subsection (2) above shall be deemed to be duly made to the landlord if it is made to an agent of the landlord or to a person who demands the rent of the
  984
  premises concerned, and any such agent or person to whom such a request is made shall as soon as may be forward it to the landlord.
  (2C) A landlord who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a request under subsection (2) above within the period mentioned in that subsection and a person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement imposed on him by subsection (2B) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a line not exceeding £200.").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 9, after "(1)") insert ("or subsection (2C)").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 41A.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 107 insert the following new clause "Form and content of certain notices to quit.
  (1) In section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 or, in Scotland, section 131 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 (minimum length of notice to quit) after the words "shall be valid unless it" there shall be inserted the words "is in writing and contains such information as may be prescribed and" and at the end of that section there shall be added the following subsections—
  "(2) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containg any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (3) Regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different circumstances"
  (2) This section does not apply in relation to a notice to quit given before the day appointed for the coming into operation of this section.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 108 [Service charges]:
  9.57 p.m.
  LORD SANDYS LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 96, line 9, at end insert:
  "(and if any works in respect of which a service charge is claimed are estimated to cost more than £250, at least two estimates of the cost of such works shall be obtained by the landlord or agent and one of the said estimates shall be from a firm wholly

  985
  unconnected with them, in the manner described in Schedule 9 to this Act.")
  The noble Lord said: In speaking to this Amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. Before starting to speak to Amendment No. 42, I should like to draw attention to a typographical error. The Committee will be aware of the printing problems which exist so I hope that the error will be excused. The last line of the Amendment reads: "Schedule 9 to this Act." It should read, "Schedule 10". This is quite obvious when examining the Schedules. There is one other small error which is scarcely worth mentioning—two words have been run into each other in Amendment No. 43.
  I speak with considerable enthusiasm to this group of Amendments on service charges, partly because I have an interest to declare here as a former tenant of Freshwater and, latterly, as an ex-tenant of Freshwater; so I have knowledge at first hand of this problem. The second reason for my interest is that my honourable friend Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg has spent the last three years campaigning in this field, and I think that it is quite clear from reading the proceedings of the Standing Committee in another place what an enormous amount of time and effort he has spent in compiling information which is closely linked to his own experience in a particular area of London. At this stage, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Amendment not only covers London but refers to the service charges on properties throughout the country. Therefore, it affects a very large number of tenants indeed. I hope, accordingly, that even at this late hour your Lordships will bear with me because there is a considerable amount of detail which I feel will justify the case if I examine it a little further.
  The first Amendment as set out under Clause 108 deals with a special matter: if more than £250 is concerned in the estimated costs, two estimates must be given. Linked to this, the next Amendment, No. 43, states that if more than £2,000 as an upper limit is concerned, consultation is necessary with the tenants' association. The third Amendment, No. 44, gives a definition of the composition of tenants' associations and the recognition which is necessary of that said tenants' association or group.
  In speaking first to Amendment No. 42, I should like to go into a little detail as to what is in the Bill under Schedule 10. If we turn to Schedule 10 it makes a specific reference under
  "Service Charges: Amendments of Sections 90 and 91 of Housing Finance Act 1972."
  I should mention to your Lordships the chronology of events, because shortly after the Housing Finance Bill became law in 1972, on November 6, Stage I of the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act froze all service charges. So in a sense the freezing which took place was very beneficial to the case which my honourable friend Mr. Finsberg was trying to bring about. However, his contention, and indeed our contention, is that as the Bill is at present drafted under Schedule 10 the Amendment to Sections 90 and 91 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 is insufficient in itself to enable the special circumstances to be fully dealt with. Therefore, the Amendment which is set out here is felt to be desirable.
  It is encouraging to learn from reading the proceedings in Standing Committee, that the Minister, Mr. Freeson, was able to make this statement, and I quote his exact words from column 383, Standing Committee B:
  "The objectives which the honourable Member for Hampstead, Mr. Finsberg, has set before the Committee in respect of these Amendments are wholly acceptable—I mean that in a wholehearted sense—wholly acceptable to me as a Minister and to the Government."
  That was a very encouraging statement, but unfortunately at a later stage in the discussions it became apparent that the Amendment as drafted was not acceptable as such but no very precise or convincing reason was given for this purpose. I here quote the Minister's final comment upon this matter, in which he stated that he felt it was undesirable to place the relationships between landlords and tenants in too rigid a form. I will read, if I may, his statement in column 396 of the Standing Committee. He said:
  "I went on to spell out other reasons why I thought the Amendment was unnecessary. in so far as it was seeking a good objective but could be damaging in as much as it produced too great a rigidity to impose upon landlord and tenant relations."
  We feel that this statement is insufficient as it stands. We believe that the Amendment is necessary and, as the clause is drafted at the present moment, I believe

  987
  that Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 should follow. I beg to move.
  10.5 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for the way in which he spoke to these Amendments although he has increased my task by speaking to all three of them at the same time, because my three combined briefs will make a fairly long speech. I regret to say that they are rather clobbering briefs but I shall try to cut them down a bit. I shall have to try to cut them down a bit. On the first Amendment, Amendment No. 42, the advice I have received certainly hits it for six because it starts off by saying that it is defective in drafting, and I will pass that one over for the moment. It says that it is unnecessary and that perhaps is more to the point. Finally, it says that far from helping the tenants—and it was quite clear from the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, spoke that that was the intention of the Amendment—it is more likely to have the effect of harming their interests very seriously indeed in the long run.
  Before coming to the reasons why the principle of the Amendment is so unacceptable to the Government, I should like to say something about the technical defects. The Amendment fixes a rigid amount of £250 as the estimated cost of works above which competitive tenders are to be obtained. I say "tenders" because I take it that that is what the Amendment means when it talks about getting two estimates. The Amendment does not define "works", which is a term which does not fit in with the definition of service charges. It does not prescribe who is to estimate the cost of the works as being likely to exceed £250. It prescribes a rigid sum as applicable to all blocks of fiats, the smallest and the largest alike, although in a small block £250 might pay for a real job of work, whereas in some of the very big blocks that sum might only cover insignificant items. It does not prescribe any machinery for ensuring that this statutory duty is carried out, and it incorporates a reference to the wrong Schedule—but that has now been corrected. Apart from this the Amendment is unnecessary. Its aims are met by the provision in the Bill as it stands.
  In considering whether a service charge is reasonable, the court will have
  988
  specific power to consider such questions as whether the work was done at reasonable cost, and hence to consider whether it might have been done more cheaply by someone else. It will clearly be sensible for landlords to guard against this by obtaining estimates before incurring expenditure. No specific provision to that end is therefore necessary. However, the most serious of the Government's objections to Amendment No. 42 is the risk that this redundant requirement could lead to delay in carrying out necessary works and hence, in times of inflation, lead to actual increases in the resultant cost to leaseholders.
  At periods when the building industry is under pressure, it may be impossible to obtain competitive tenders, particularly for "once-off" jobs—and we are all very much aware of these difficulties at the present time. Difficulties in this respect would afford a justification for inaction to landlords inclined anyway to neglect maintenance and repair. They could also for long periods impede the conscientious in carrying out necessary work and result in the work ultimately being done at higher cost than if a single tender had been possible. Any such increases will be borne by the leaseholders and it is they who will ultimately pay the cost if their homes depreciate because of neglect of maintenance and care. Any measure which could have the effect of unnecessarily increasing delay in the carrying out of maintenance or of affording justification for neglect is contrary to the interests of leaseholders and, in the Government's view, this Amendment would have that effect. It is simply not going to make a good landlord do something which he would not be doing in the ordinary prudent carrying out of his duties, but it would present the bad landlord with an opportunity for putting things off and perhaps not doing them at all.
  The second Amendment, No. 43, concerns the £2,000. The object here is to force landlords or their agents to discuss with tenants associations or with individual tenants any work which is estimated to cost more than £2,000 before competitive estimates are obtained, and to do so in such a manner that evidence of the consultation and of the views expressed by the tenants shall be produced for the court in the event of a subsequent dispute. I shall not go into

  989
  the defects of the Amendment again, but will simply say that they are of a similar order of magnitude to the ones I have described in the previous Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, left me in no doubt about the purpose of the Amendment—to be helpful to tenants. The idea is one to which the Government are wholly sympathetic. The Government entirely agree that tenants should be consulted before large sums of money are spent on their behalf. But to require this consultation by direct statutory means, without at the same time imperilling the rights of minorities and the actual good repair of the building, would entail measures far more thorough, comprehensive and carefully prepared than it has been possible to do in this Amendment. It would involve a whole complicated series of clauses setting out the standards to be met by tenants' associations, the means by which the rights of individual leaseholders are to be protected, the form consultation was to take, and provision for arbitration where the satisfactory maintenance of the building was at stake. Any such procedure could present a whole series of opportunities for landlords and their agents to evade the procedure, challenge the process at every stage, and involve tenants in prolonged litigation before services are even provided.
  As I have said, a measure like this, with no safeguards for minorities, could threaten individual tenants with the loss, as a result of collective action, of the rights their leases give them. Consider, for instance, the situation that could arise in, say, a three-storey block of flats with lifts, the flats occupied by tenants all of whose leases contain an obligation to contribute to the cost of servicing and renewing the lifts. The lifts become due for renewal, and, as is so often the case, the estimated cost is greater than the tenants expected. The ground and first floor tenants decide they would rather depend on the stairs than contribute to the renewal of the lifts; the top floor tenants to whom the lifts are more important, are ready to pay their share. They, however, would be outvoted by the other tenants and, under a process of consultation such as is envisaged in this Amendment, would lose the rights to which their leases entitled them. Again, consider the situation that could arise in a block
  990
  where the majority of tenants were elderly people on limited incomes, unwilling, despite their contractual obligations, to contribute to maintenance, to spend money on the upkeep of a building they thought would last their time in any event. The minority of younger people, though theirs was the longer-term interest in the block, could be persistently outvoted till the block fell into extreme disrepair.
  The new clause as drafted gives the individual tenant a clear and unequivocal right to go to the court, challenge the standard at which his services are being provided and their cost, and obtain a declaration from the court as to the standard and cost which are reasonable. These rights override any contrary provision which may be in the tenants' lease. The presence of such a right in the background, and the possibility of being prevented from recovering money even after they have spent it, will provide a strong incentive to landlords to consult tenants before incurring expenditure. It may also bring about the voluntary sale of freehold interests to groups of tenants.
  Any further measures would be so complex legally that it would be better to examine instead, as the Government have every intention of doing, the possibility of statutorily enabling groups of tenants to acquire the freeholds of their own blocks of flats, so that they are not dependent on others to administer their services but have the power to do such things themselves in their own interests. In the long run, that will be the best solution. But this Government agree with the previous one that in the urgent short-term this measure offers the most sensible and realistic hope of easing the lot of those who must pay service charges.
  The effect of Amendment No. 44, describing the form of tenants' associations, would be to face the courts and tenants' associations with prolonged and complicated actions to prove that tenants' associations represented 60 per cent. of those eligible to belong to them. This would involve, first, proving the number of tenants eligible to belong; and, secondly, proving to the satisfaction of the court that 60 per cent. of that number did so belong. In a large block of flats this could involve proving 300 individuals held tenancies of one sort or another, and further proving that at least

  991
  180 of them were members of the association. To obtain proof of evidence of this would take a very long time and would be extremely expensive.
  To sum up, the intention of the three Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is one with which no reasonable person could disagree. Because of the complicated nature of the provisions which would be necessary to accomplish what the noble Lord wants, he has succeeded in producing Amendments which would not help a tenant who had a good landlord, but which would definitely place at considerable risk tenants whose landlords did not come into that category, because in the case of each of these three categories they would provide opportunities for delaying action which would be very much against the tenants' interests. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will accept that although the Government cannot agree to these Amendments, we are in complete sympathy with the objects which he has in mind and that the Government are just as determined as he is to ensure that the best interests of leasehold tenants in these circumstances are looked after. I hope, therefore, that he will find it possible not to press the Amendment.
  LORD SANDYS: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the manner, if not for the content, of his remarks and for the cordial way in which he has expressed agreement in principle with what lies behind these Amendments. On Amendment No. 42, I shall continue to dispute with him the question of the yardstick, because one must start somewhere and £250 is a reasonable starting gate. In this field of service charges, one is the whole time at the mercy of two forces; first, the slow pace of bureaucracy in producing estimates; and, secondly, the very fast pace of the rate of inflation in building costs. Those two twin forces, the Scylla and Charybdis through which one must conduct oneself, provide circumstances which make it virtually impossible to draft a satisfactory Amendment.
  May I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider what has been suggested in this series of Amendments? I accept that they may have defects in their content, but if the Government are in agreement with me and with the principles enunciated in far greater detail in
  992
  Standing Committee B in another place it seems appropriate that something should be done. Otherwise, we are faced with a counsel of despair: that this situation, which is clearly recognised and identified and seen to necessitate a remedy, appears to be outside the possibility of such a remedy in this Bill. I accept that there are lions in the path. I accept that there are particular lions to face in the problem of drafting a suitable Amendment which will be better than my Amendment No. 43. Also, I acknowledge that there is a problem under the eligibility factor in Amendment No. 44. Bearing those three matters in mind, and reserving my situation for putting down a further Amendment should it be thought possible to do so at Report stage, and at the same time encouraging the Government to consider the possibility of bringing forward their own Amendment at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has responded, but I should not like him to be under any misapprehension. Certainly, we shall have another look at the matter, but for the reasons I have stated—the virtual impossibility of doing anything which is an improvement in the Bill—I do not offer very high hopes. The fact is that the Bill gives protection to these people in the last resort by providing for them to go to the court. One does not want to provide, if one can help it, that the only remedy for dissatisfied tenants is to go to the court. But our main objection to the Amendments which have been drafted and put forward by the noble Lord is that they would almost certainly involve going to the courts at a much later stage, and perhaps at much greater expense. Nevertheless, we will have another look at it; but I am not at all hopeful that we can do better than the Bill does at the present time.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 108 agreed to.
  Clause 109 agreed to.
  Clause 110 [Improvement of property acquired by local authority]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 110 shall stand part of the Bill?
  10.22 p.m.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move that we leave out Clause 110. If

  993
  I may, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 66 because the two Amendments are connected. Both of these are technical matters. Clause 110 was not included in the Bill as first introduced in another place but was added in Committee there, having been tabled by Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann, the Member for Merton, Mitcham and Morden. His purpose then was to impose a duty on local authorities to ensure that the houses they have acquired or buildings which they have made suitable for use as houses are used as housing accommodation as soon as practicable. The Government indicated in Committee in the other place that they fully accepted the spirit of the clause, but unfortunately in looking at it again we do not think the drafting is quite adequate to achieve its purpose. So the Amendments seek to put the matter beyond doubt and to put the provision to a more appropriate place in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Clause 110 disagreed to.
  Clause 111 agreed to.
  Clause 112 [Orders]:
  10.24 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 45. It is a simple Amendment designed to remove the present overlap between Clause 112(3) and Clause 115(3) by providing in effect that Clause 112(3) relates to Orders other than the appointed day Orders. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 100, line 18, leave out ("provision") and insert ("of the preceding provisions").(Lord Hughes.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 113 and 114 agreed to.
  Clause 115 [Short tille, citation, commencement and extent]:
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 102, line 30, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, which removes an unnecessary reference to Statutory Instrument procedure. I beg to move.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I feel somehow that this is the kind of occasion when the Government would rather welcome something said by myself. They have hardly presented us just recently with a series of Amendments about which it is possible to say a great deal, but I can see the difficulties in which we find ourselves. However, it gives me an opportunity to say that I have at least been grateful for all the Notes on Clauses which I have had on the various Amendments that the Government have moved, because on such a complicated Bill as this it makes all the difference if one has these notes. I do not think I have any further comment to make at this stage.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Housing Association Tenancies]:
  10.25 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 108, line 34, leave out from ("made") to end of the line and insert ("or, where such an order has been made,—

  (a) during any period while its operation is postponed or its execution is suspended; or

  (b) after it has been rescinded").

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47 and I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 55. These Amendments correct a slight omission in sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 5 and in sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 11. The sub-paragraphs provide, one for England and Wales and the other for Scotland, that the reference in the preceding provisions in paragraph 5 and paragraph 11 respectively to a person duly retaining possession of a dwelling-house are references to his retaining possession without any order for possession having been made or after the rescision of such an order. I do not think that will present the Committee with any great difficulty. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 109, line 5, after ("then") insert ("subject to paragraph 7A below").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48. It is part of the

  995
  concept of registration in Part II of the Bill that the privileges of housing associations whereby their tenancies are mostly exempt from protection under the Rent Act is in future to be reserved to registered housing associations only. Other associations are to be placed as nearly as possible in the position of private landlords. Clause 18 and Schedule 3 effect the transfer of tenancies from the one code to the other. In particular, paragraph 7 of Part II of the Schedule makes provision for the rent limit for such tenancies. It omits, however, to deal with the question of progression towards the registered rent by freezing, and this Amendment corrects the omission. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 109, line 19, at end insert—
  ("(3) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall affect the operation of section 48A of the Rent Act 1968 (cancellation of registration of rent) and, accordingly, where the registration of a rent is cancelled in accordance with that section sub-paragraph (1) above shall cease to apply in relation to the rent of the dwelling-house concerned.")
  The noble Lord said: Section 48A of the Rent Act 1968 provides for the cancellation of registration of a rent where inter alia a new regulated tenancy is granted to the tenant for at least 12 months for a rent exceeding the rent under the previous tenancy if three years have expired since the date the registration took effect, and provided the rent officer is satisfied that the rent, or the highest rent, under the agreement does not exceed a fair rent. The application for registration must be a joint application by the landlord and the tenant. The Amendment makes it clear that Section 48A is to apply to statutory tenancies imposed by paragraph 5 if parties have come to terms and if the rent officer is satisfied that the rent or rents they have agreed do not exceed a fair rent and there is no reason why they should not proceed under this section as can any other landlord or tenant under a regulated tenancy where a rent has been registered. I beg to move.
  BARONESS YOUNG: Do I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Garns-worthy, has said that this Schedule now brings this Bill into line with the 1968
  996
  Rent Act, and as I understand the position on fair rents, a fair rent may be agreed between the tenant and the landlord three years after the first agreement was reached, taking into account the same considerations, provided it does not exceed the conditions which would apply to a fair rent, and that this is really a provision which is bringing this Bill into line with what the Rent Act says for other tenancies? Am I correct in my assumption?
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is correct. Probably like me she would wish to have an opportunity of studying what I have said and I should like to read what she has said. If I am at fault in confirming her interpretation I will certainly write to her.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 110, line 11, at end insert:
  "7A.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph apply where—

  (a) a tenancy of a dwelling-house becomes a protected tenancy by virtue of section 18(1) of this Act or a statutory tenancy is imposed by virtue of paragraph 5 above; and

  (b) immediately before the tenancy became a protected tenancy or, as the case may require, immediately before the tenancy referred to in paragraph 5(1) above came to an end, section 84 of the 1972 Act (phasing of progression to registered rent) applied to the rent of the dwelling-house let on that tenancy.

  (2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, section 84 of the 1972 Act shall continue to apply or, as the case may require, shall apply to the rent of a dwelling-house subject to such a protected or statutory tenancy as is referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above.
  (3) Section 84 of the 1972 Act shall cease to apply by virtue of this paragraph to the rent of a dwelling-house—

  (a) on the date on which a rent is registered for the dwelling-house under Part IV of the Rent Act 1968 if the date of registration, within the meaning of Part VIII of the 1972 Act, is after the operative date; or

  (b) on the date on which a regulated tenancy of the dwelling-house is granted to a person who is neither the tenant under the protected or statutory tenancy referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above nor a person who might succeed him as a statutory tenant.

  (4) If and so long as, by virtue of this paragraph, subsection (2) of section 84 of the 1972 Act imposes for any rental period of a tenancy or statutory tenancy a rent limit below the rent registered for the dwelling-house as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section,—

  997

  (a) the contractual rent limit shall be the rent limit so imposed and not the registered rent (as provided by section 20(2) of the Rent Act 1968) and section 87 of the 1972 Act (increase of rent without notice to quit) shall apply in relation to the tenancy as if it were one to which Part VIH of that Act applied; and

  (b) a notice of increase under section 22(2)(b) of the Rent Act 1968 (increase of rent for statutory periods) may not increase the rent for any statutory period above the rent limit so imposed, and any such notice which purports to increase it further shall have effect to increase it to that limit but no further.

  (5) For the purposes of the application on and after the operative date of section 84 of the 1972 Act to the rent of a dwelling-house subject to a statutory tenancy which is imposed by virtue of paragraph 5 above, that section shall be deemed to have continued to apply throughout the period between the termination of the tenancy referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and the operative date; but nothing in this paragraph shall affect the rent recoverable for that dwelling-house at any time during that period.").
  The noble Lord said: I spoke on this when speaking to Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  10.30 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 110, line 12, at beginning insert ("In the application of").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, and to associate with it Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54. Section 25 of the Rent Act 1968 applies to a statutory tenancy where no rent has been registered. It enables the landlord where an improvement has been made to a dwelling house after the time as from which the rent under the regulated tenancy was agreed, to increase the rent by 12½ per cent. per annum of his expenditure. By virtue of Section 38(2) of the Housing Finance Act 1972, to be amended by paragraph 21 of Schedule 11 to the Bill, Section 25 does not apply to improvement where the grant is payable under Part I of the Housing Act 1969 or Part VI of the Bill. As paragraph 8 stands, Section 25 does not apply to a statutory tenancy arising after the termination of a tenancy which becomes protected by virtue of Clause 18, nor to a statutory tenancy imposed by paragraph 5 of this Schedule. Though it is proper that Section 25 should not apply to improvements carried out
  998
  while Part VIII of the Housing Finance Act applies to the tenancy, on reconsideration it is thought only right that Section 25 should apply when the Rent Act applies to the tenancy as it applies to all other regulated tenancies. These Amendments have the effect of applying Section 25 to improvements carried out after the Rent Act applies to the tenancy. I hope that that sounds more clear to those listening to it than it does to me reading it. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 110, line 14, leave out ("shall not apply").—(Lord Hushes.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 53.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 110, line 16, leave out ("nor to") and insert ("and").—(Lord Hughes.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 54.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 110, line 17, at end insert ("for the reference to 7th December 1965 (the date after which the improvement must be completed) there shall be substituted a reference to the operative date").—(Lord Hughes.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 55A.
  Page 111, line 44, leave out from ("in") to the end of line 45 and insert ("head (a) or (b) of this sub-paragraph").
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a technical drafting amendment which substitutes "head (a) or (b) of this sub-paragraph" for the phase "subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph". I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 55B:
  Page 112, line 14, leave out ("these") and insert ("those").
  The noble Lord said: This corrects a drafting error. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 55D:
  Page 112, line 28, after ("63") insert ("(2) to (4)").
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment to paragraph 12(2)(c) of Schedule 3 restricts the application of Section 63 of the 1972 Act to subsections (2) to (4) of Section 63. This is because subsections (1), (5) and (6) are not relevant to the case being dealt with in this subparagraph of the Schedule. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendments Nos. 55E. 55F and 55G.
  Page 112, line 28, leave out from ("apply") to ("tenancy") in line 29 and insert ("or, as the case may require, shall apply to the rent of a dwelling-house under a tenancy to which this paragraph applies as if that tenancy had been").
  Page 112, line 40, leave out (" continue to ").
  Page 112, line 43, leave out from ("apply") to ("a tenancy") in line 44 and insert ("or" as the case may require, shall apply to the rent of a dwelling-house under a tenancy to which this paragraph applies as if that tenancy had been").
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 55E, 55F and 55G are technical drafting Amendments designed to remove any doubt as to which tenancy is referred to by the words "that tenancy". With the permission of the Committee, I will move the three Amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 113, line 7, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert
  ("(3) In the application of section 24(1) of the 1971 Act (increase of rent for improvements) to a tenancy to which this paragraph applies, for the reference to 8th December 1965 (the date after which the improvement must be completed) there shall be substituted a refereince to the operative date.")
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment deletes the existing sub-paragraph 12 (3) of Schedule 3 and inserts a new sub-paragraph. The effect is to apply Section 24(1) of the Rent (Scotland) Act
  1000
  1971 so as to enable a landlord to recover as part of the rent 12½ per cent. per annum of his expenditure on improvements completed on or after the operative date. It therefore has the same effect as Amendment No. 54 for England and Wales. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think this may be a convenient moment to move that the House be resumed. We have made very good progress, having completed Schedule 3. I think it would be as well if we called it a day for the time being. I beg to move that the House be resumed.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported with Amendments.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY
LORD TREFGARNE LORD TREFGARNE asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend issuing further "Policy Guidelines" to the Civil Aviation Authority as envisaged by Section 3 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971; and if so, when.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My right honourable friend is undertaking a review of civil aviation policy. The issue of further guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority would be one of the matters for consideration in the light of this review.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.