Lords Sitting of 16 May 1974

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.
The Lord Blackford—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Viscount Wimborne—Took the Oath.

SALMON FISHERY QUOTA
LORD SWANSEA: 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 their attention has been drawn to Press reports that catches of salmon in Greenland waters in 1973 exceeded the quota agreed by the North Atlantic national fishery authorities by no less than 43 per cent.; and what representations are being made to the Danish Government on this matter.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Danish authorities have informed Her Majesty's Government that the catch of salmon by Greenland fishermen in 1973 exceeded the quota, and Her Majesty's Government have expressed concern over this. The salmon quota will be discussed again at the annual meeting of the International Commission for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries in June of this year, when the United Kingdom will continue to work for the full enforcement of conservation measures based upon international scientific advice.
LORD SWANSEA: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Can he say whether the Danish Government have given any reason why the catch exceeded the quota in the way that it did? Will Her Majesty's Government do everything they can to impress upon the Danish Government the seriousness of the situation; that it constitutes a serious threat to the future existence of the Atlantic salmon as a species?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no reason to believe that this has been done deliberately, and the noble Lord will forgive me if I say that I ought not to venture any suggestions on this particular matter. It may have been due to late recording or something of that kind. I think it is only fair to say that Denmark has expressed real concern about this matter, and of course it is of concern to the other countries who are involved. The noble Lord will no doubt know that fishing of salmon is due to cease in that area in 1976, although an undertaking has been given that Greenland shall be allowed to continue fishing after that period provided—and this is the position at the moment—that she does not exceed 1,100 metric tons.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister two questions? First, is the Minister aware that at the forthcoming meeting in June the Danish concern will take the form of a request by the Danish fishing interests for an even greater allocation than at the present time? Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government ensure that her representatives do their very best to persuade the representatives of other countries to resist this proposal by the Danes, which will further deplete the everdiminishing stocks of salmon?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are aware of that point. Her Majesty's Government propose, provided they get the support of the other countries involved, to insist that the present quota is maintained unless there is scientific evidence to the contrary.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, so far as scientific evidence can record, something like 35 per cent. of salmon caught off Greenland are spawned in British waters? As many of these salmon are artificially hatched by the owners of rivers, will Her Majesty's Government really be firm with the Danish Government?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is no doubt that the Government will be firm. I think that probably the figure is even higher than the noble Lord has said. But it depends on what agreement we can get at the International Commission when it meets in June.
LORD STRANGE: My Lords, is it true that the smoked salmon sold in the House of Lords is caught by the Japanese in the Danish Straits?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would not know the answer to that question. Perhaps the noble Lord should direct his question to the chairman of the appropriate committee.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that greedy fishermen proffered exactly the same arguments when the whale was threatened, and very nearly succeeded in exterminating the whale? Will they therefore be extremely tough in this forthcoming conference? Otherwise, the salmon will go the same way as some species of whale.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I tried to make it clear to your Lordships that fishing off Greenland will come to an end in 1976, except for the Greenlanders.
LORD INGLEWOOD: Because there is none left?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: No, my Lords; in order to see that there will be plenty in the future.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there are any penalties for infringement of the quota agreed to be caught, or does the catching rely merely on the good will of the various nations?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my understanding is that there is no penalty. It has been suggested that if Greenland exceeds her quota this year she should have that amount less next year. But there is nothing in the agreement which allows us to make that suggestion or even to enforce it.

CYPRUS: BRITISH U.N. FORCES' PAY
3.14 p.m.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is true that British Servicemen attached to the United Nations
1104
Forces in Cyprus do not receive any additional pay from the United Nations while other national contingents do so, and, if this is correct, whether an explanation can be given.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, no national contingent receives extra pay and allowances directly from the United Nations for service in Cyprus. Governments providing troops for the United Nations Force in Cyprus meet the costs of pay and allowances of their contingents on the basis of their own military regulations or applicable domestic law.
LORD ARCHIBALD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. May I ask whether he can do something to make it clear to the British troops in Cyprus that they are not in an inferior position, and are not being treated differently from other countries' contingents? I ask that question because quite responsible sergeants in the British Forces there believe that they are the only Forces which do not get a supplementary allowance.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my understanding is that the position is well understood by our men in Cyprus, but I shall certainly make further inquiries about this question. It is not an easy matter to equate the pay and allowances of one country to those of another country. I shall most certainly look further into the feeling among our troops in Cyprus.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the contingents of other nations are recruited on a voluntary basis, whereas our own British contingent consists of Regular troops?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in most cases that is so, and that has a bearing on what other countries feel they must pay their own troops.

E.E.C.: EMPLOYMENT OF FOREIGN SHIPS CREWS
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether article 48 of the Rome Treaty and regulation 1612/68 concerning non-discrimination operates in the employment of foreign ships crews who speak no English and are unable to understand orders which affect safety.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome and Regulation 1612/68 concern the free movement of labour, though they have not as yet been applied to sea transport. An employer within the Community is entitled to select or reject an employee on the basis of his suitability and qualifications for the post concerned. The inability to understand orders given in English would be grounds for rejection for employment on a United Kingdom ship.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is considerable dissension and disturbance among officers in the Merchant Navy about the employment of foreign crews coming principally from European countries, who are unable to understand orders in English and are therefore risking the lives of the crews, and possibly the ships themselves? May we have an assurance that if Merchant Navy officers refuse to employ ships' crews who are unable to understand orders in English, they will not be accused of violating Article 48 of the Treaty of Rome?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not aware of this dissension, although I am aware of an article which appeared recently in a Sunday newspaper. I can assure the noble Lord that if an officer accepted the employment of a member of a crew who could not understand orders, he would be liable under Section 48 of the Merchant Shipping Act, because he would be contravening the provisions of that section.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend attempt to define what is actually meant by the "free movement of labour", which is an essential principle in the Treaty of Rome?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I said to my noble friend, the provision to which he referred does not apply to seamen, anyhow. Even if it did, it would not
1106
provide for any employer to employ a person who could not understand the English language.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is a fact that our law in this respect depends on the Race Relations Act, and that that Act quite deliberately excludes shipping from its provisions?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, that is so. But I would emphasise to my noble friend Lord Shinwell that there is also Section 48 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970, which makes it an offence for a United Kingdom ship to sail when the Department is of the opinion that orders cannot be—to use the terminology—"effectively communicated".
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I shall be satisfied if, as a result of the clarity of his answers, that assurance is understood by Merchant Navy officers? I say that because, from what I have read in the periodical, that is not the view of the Association of Merchant Navy Officers.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, in so far as there is any doubt about the matter I can say to my noble friend that the Department of Trade has recently brought to the attention of the British Shipping Federation the fact that there is this requirement under Section 48 of the Merchant Shipping Act.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not true that the E.E.C., quite apart from the Merchant Navy, is far more liberal about the freedom of movement of labour than we are in this country?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, no doubt what my noble friend said is correct, but it has nothing to do with the Question.

U.N. CONFERENCE ON TRADE AND DEVELOPMENT
3.21 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action was taken by the British representative at the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

1107
at Geneva on the proposal that conference arrangements between shipowners and shippers should be superseded by international control.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences prepared at the recent United Nations Conference contains a number of provisions which would, in our view, hamper seaborne trade and impair the efficient operation of worldwide shipping services. For this reason Her Majesty's Government, after full consultation with shipowners and shippers, voted against the Convention, as did Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States of America. We had participated fully in the prolonged efforts to draft a universally acceptable set of rules to govern relationships between shipowners themselves and between them and their customers. It was therefore a matter of regret that this Convention failed to achieve this aim.
LORD SH1NWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, far from being annoyed with the rejection of the proposition made at this Conference, British shipping is in fact very much satisfied? These conference arrangements, which have been in operation for many years between shipowners and shippers, have worked satisfactorily and make a valuable contribution to our surplus in the balance of payments, when we have a surplus. Therefore it must be clearly understood that the British shipping industry will seek to reject, with whatever power and influence it possesses, anything in the nature of international control, or of European control, which disturbs the friendly relationship between shipowners and shippers.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not think there is anything inconsistent with what I have said and the remarks of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I would only remind him that the conferences have been the subject of an investigation by the Rochdale Committee and that most of the conferences now embody the recommendations of that Committee.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, my noble friend mentioned that Switzerland had voted on this question. Are we to understand from that fact that Switzerland is now a great marine nation?
LORD BESWICK: No, my Lords. Switzerland does have some vessels; but it is important to consider that there are customers as well as shipowners and that Switzerland, of course, had a very interesting and objective view at that Convention, one with which, as it happened, we agreed.

THE WHITSUN RECESS
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I inform the House that subject to progress of Business the House will rise for the Whitsun Recess on Thursday, May 23 and return on Monday, June 10. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on Thursday, May 23.
BUSINESS
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, may I also inform the House that dinners will be available to-night.
CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a.

CONSUMER CREDIT BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Powers of Secretary of State]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, after ("Act") insert ("(other than the making of a determination to which section 41 or 146 applies)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Council on Tribunals has made several suggestions for Amendments to the Bill and this is one of them. This particular Amendment makes it clear that the Secretary of State shall not give directions

1109
to the Director General on his adjudicating functions. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is the first of nearly 100 Amendments on the list and I should like to say to the noble Lord how grateful we are for having been supplied with notes on all these Amendments, which I know in such a short space of time has meant a considerable effort. We are most grateful as it will allow us to run through them rather more quickly than otherwise we could hope to do.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Supervision by Council on Tribunals]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 4, at end insert ("and any member of the Director's staff authorised to exercise those functions under paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the Fair Trading Act 1973").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a similar Amendment. In this case it makes it clear that if the Director General shall delegate any of his adjudicating functions to another officer, that officer, like the Director General himself, will be under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Running-account credit and fixed-sum credit]:
3.27 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 20, leave out from first ("a") to ("to") in line 21 and insert ("facility under a personal credit agreement whereby the debtor is enabled").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6 together which I think will save time. These Amendments all go together and are intended to meet the objection of the clearing banks to the words "right" and "entitled" in the clause as printed. The banks fear that if it is said that credit is a right conferred on a debtor to receive something, or that he is entitled to receive something, it might be construed that the creditor is bound to allow a customer to continue exceeding his credit limit after he has allowed him to do this once. In any case, we now feel ourselves that the word "right" is inappropriate in relation to fixed-sum credit and where a credit
1110
is usually given at once and there is no time during which the debtor has a right to receive it. Accordingly, these Amendments replace the words "right" and "entitled" with the neutral words "facility" and "enabled". I beg to move.
LORD SEEBOHM: My Lords, the clearing banks much welcome these Amendments which are most helpful, but there are a number of technical points which still leave us in doubt about the definitions in Part II. I hope we can have some assurance that further conversations will go on with the Department in these matters. I should like to refer to Clause 10 because I do not think I can raise it anywhere else, which says that the same position still applies to the current account loan area, where we believe there is still some definition which would meet the difficulties which remain on this point between the clearing banks and the Government.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, before the Minister replies may I add that I am aware of the considerable amount of consultation that is taking place on these issues; it has been approached in a spirit which has been extremely helpful and which is much appreciated. For that reason it should not be thought that it is entirely due to the influence of other Members of this House who considered the Bill that there are very few Amendments, other than Government Amendments, at this stage. We are aware that these consultations continue and hope that they may lead to further, perhaps minor, amendments on the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, has suggested.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the discussions are continuing on this and several other technical issues and I can give an assurance that there is no objection to their being continued. We fully understand that that is the reason why there are so few Amendments, other than Government Amendments, and we appreciate the assistance we are being given to get the Bill through the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I formally beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 28, leave out from ("other") to "to") in line 29 and insert ("facility under a

1111
personal credit agreement whereby the debtor is enabled").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is a purely drafting Amendment which is consequential on the Amendment to Clause 8 which was made in Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("8(1)") and insert ("8(2)").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendment No. 6. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 43, leave out ("entitled") and insert ("enabled").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Small agreements]:
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, again, Amendment No. 7 is a purely drafting Amendment and is also consequential on Amendments to Clause 8 made in Committee. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 33, leave out ("8(1)") and insert ("8(2)").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [Multiple agreements]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 9, line 31, at end insert—
("(4A) In the case of an agreement for running-account credit, a term of the agreement allowing the credit limit to be exceeded merely temporarily shall not be treated as a separate agreement or as providing fixed-sum credit in respect of the excess.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause is concerned with multiple agreements. The Amendment is in response to the clearing banks' criticism of the complications that could arise under this clause where there is a temporary excess of the credit limit on an overdraft on current account. The issue was raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm. This Amendment adds a new subsection to this clause, which provides that a term of an agreement for running account credit which allows the credit limit to be temporarily increased is not to be treated as a separate agreement or as
1112
providing fixed sum credit in respect of the excess. This means that by allowing a temporary excess drawing on an overdraft a bank will not be creating a new agreement for fixed-sum credit, but will be merely modifying the existing agreement temporarily. I beg to move.
LORD SEEBOHM: My Lords, we welcome very much the move towards meeting our requirements by this Amendment, but it does not go quite far enough. There is still a snag. In fact, if the words "a term of the agreement" were omitted, I think that would satisfy everybody. I wonder whether that point could be looked at again.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I think that this would be a suitable point for discussion in the talks that are to take place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25 [Licensee to be a fit person]:
3.35 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 13, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) Every licence shall contain a copy of the relevant entry in the register, and a note explaining the effect of sections 360) and 39(3) of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a variation of an Amendment which I put down in Committee, which met with some criticism at that stage, and I hope that this new version deals with those criticisms. Under Clause 35 the Director is required to keep a register of the licences issued, and, because it is necessary to keep the register up to date, under Clause 36 it is the duty of the licence holder to notify the Director of any changes which need to be made in the register; and if the licence holder fails to discharge that duty he commits an offence under subsection (3) of Clause 39. As the Bill stands at present, if the licence holder wants a copy of the entry in the register he has to apply specially for it, and is liable to pay a fee for it. I should have thought that the least that can be done is to supply, with the licence, a copy of the relevant entry which the licence holder is under a duty to see is kept up to date; that he should be reminded that he has this duty to notify changes and that if he fails in that duty he then commits a criminal offence.

1113
That is what this Amendment seeks to introduce into the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, in accordance with the undertaking given in Committee, the Government have given sympathetic consideration to the Amendment. Their hope was to be able to accept the Amendment or to propose an alternative Amendment which would have a similar effect. Closer examination of the matter has led the Government to the conclusion that they should be rather cautious about amending the Bill in the way suggested. In the first place, there may be a matter recorded in the register, such as convictions for offences under the Bill, which a licensee would not wish to appear in his licence, especially if he wanted to hang it up in his office. This problem could be overcome by requiring the copy of the entry to acompany the licence rather than appear on it, but other more substantial objections remain.
We think it, in principle, inappropriate to deal with such a matter of administration in the Bill. To do so diminishes the scope for flexibility which is achieved at many places in the Bill. The need for flexibility is by no means a minor consideration in this context. The licensing system and the register will entail a complex operation. A vast amount of paper will be involved and, as yet, final plans have not been made as to how this will be handled. We do not wish to build unnecessary constraints into the legislation. The inclusion of too much detail in the Bill would also tend to diminish the stature of the Director, who, it is generally agreed, ought to be, and indeed is, the sort of person who could be trusted to get on with the job.
For these reasons, we think that a provision on the lines proposed would be unwise, and we hope that, given an assurance that his concern will be drawn to the Director's attention, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment. I would also add that we are prepared to put that assurance in writing.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am not so concerned about my concern being drawn to the attention of the Director. What I am concerned about is the Director drawing the attention of the licensee to the fact that unless he does
1114
something he will be liable to commit a criminal offence. That is my concern in this matter. If I can have an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that the licensee really will be reminded by the Director of his responsibility in this matter, and will not have to pay a fee to get his copy of the entry in the register, then my concern will be allayed. But so far it has not been.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, having expressed some sympathy with the purpose of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, when we considered this point in Committee, may I add just a word to that? Of course we all agree that the Director is the sort of person who could be, should be and would be trusted to get on with his job; and, in the spirit of this Bill, we are making such marvellous progress that the last thing I wish to do is to detain the House on this matter. But I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, can tell us that this matter will be looked at once more. At the end of his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, summed up what I feel about the purposes of this Amendment, and about what it seeks to do. Perhaps this could be looked at once more with the Director General, to see whether the very real objections, which I recognise, can be met in some other way which will serve the public purpose which the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has in mind.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, we have it in mind that the licensee will be given a copy of the relevant part of the register, either at the time of his application or at the time of his being granted a licence. We also have it in mind that he should be warned of his responsibility for keeping the register up to date in regard to his own firm, and of the consequences if he does not. But there are so many ways in which the licensee could be informed that we should be reluctant to agree to this being expressed in legislation. We can certainly give an assurance that we will draw the attention of the Director General to the issue and we will also draw his attention to the assurance that I have given in this House. We have complete sympathy with this issue and will make that clear beyond doubt, but we do not want to tie down the Director General in a manner which might appear to be unnecessary.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am well satisfied with the assurance which has been given and I am grateful for the co-operation given to me by the Minister between the Committee stage and the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Enforcement of agreements made by unlicensed trader]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendments Nos. 10, 11 and 12.
Page 20, line 28, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (2)")
Line 37, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (2)")
Page 21, line 3, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (2)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 10. 11 and 12 together. They are all drafting Amendments: indeed perhaps they could be called "polishing" Amendments, because instead of merely making a reference to a section, they will enable reference to be made to a subsection. These Amendments will also add to the consistency shown throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 41 [Appeals to Secretary of State under Part III]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 21, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
("(4) A direction tinder subsection (3) for payment of costs may be made a rule of the High Court on the application of the party in whose favour it is given")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is made in response to a suggestion made by the Council on Tribunals, who thought it would be preferable to replace the present text with an adaptation of Section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972. We accept that this is a more familiar procedure, and the Amendment provides for it to be used. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14. This Amendment makes the same provision in respect
1116
of Scotland, where the term "expenses" is used instead of "costs".
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 24, at end insert—
"(5) In Scotland a direction under subsection (3) for payment of expenses may be enforced in like manner as a recorded decree arbitral."—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Form and content of agreements]:
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15. This is a drafting Amendment which remedies a small error in the present wording.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 16, leave out ("licensee") and Insert ("person carying on a consumer credit business or a consumer hire business")—(Lora Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Duty to give notice of cancellation rights]:
3.45 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18.
Page 31, line 31, leave out ("licensee") and insert ("person")
line 33, leave out ("licensee") and insert ("person")
line 36, leave out ("licensee") and insert ("applicant")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together. These are parallel Amendments to Amendment No. 15 to Clause 60, and likewise correct a small drafting error in the present wording. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 65 [Consequences of improper execution]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 32, line 6, after ("goods") insert ("or land")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here we are dealing with a circumstance which is unusual in the country as a whole but which I understand is current practice in some parts of it—the case where a house is bought, as it were, on hire-purchase—that is to say, the tenant pays a rent for a number of years and at the end of the period has the option to purchase.
This Amendment remedies an omission in Clause 65(2) which, as at present drafted, makes clear that the re-taking of goods to which a regulated agreement relates is enforcement of the agreement and can therefore, under Clause 65(1), only be carried out on an order of the court if the agreement has not been properly executed, but makes no reference to the retaking of land. As, legally speaking, land under a conditional sale agreement is the property of the creditor, there could be some doubt about whether the re-taking of the land is enforcement of the agreement. This Amendment dispels any such doubt. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Liability of creditor for breaches by supplier]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
Page 38, line 43, leave out from ("agreement") to ("a") in line 1 on page 39 and insert ("any claim against the supplier in respect of").
Page 39, line 4, leave out ("for the damages").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 20 and 21 together. These two Amendments deal with points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when this clause was debated in Committee. He pointed out that a customer might not wish simply to claim damages from a supplier but might wish instead to return the goods which he had received and get his money back. The noble Viscount pointed out that, as printed, the clause referred only to the recovery of damages and not any other right which a customer might have. These Amendments deal with this point by deleting the references to "damages" and by making it clear that where a debtor under a debtor-creditor-supplier agreement falling within Clause 13(b) or (c) has any claim against the supplier in relation to a transaction financed by the agreement he shall have the same claim against the creditor. I beg to move.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, I should like to welcome these Amendments. As we see it, they represent a notable improvement in the Bill. We are very glad to have the Amendments.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. This is a drafting Amendment which is intended to clarify the meaning of Clause 75(3)(b), as at present worded.
Amendment moved—
Page 39, leave out line 12 and insert—
("(b) so far as the claim relates to any single item to which the supplier has attached a cash price")—(Lord Jacques.)
LORD ELTON: My Lords, we cannot be so grateful about this Amendment, largely because our hopes were so greatly aroused by the original circulation of the Amendment, by means of which it appeared that the whole clause was coming out instead of only the first line. There was a great deal of silent jubilation because this brought about exactly the improvements which we sought to bring about during the Committee stage. I am very sorry that the noble Lord has set his face against the improvements we wanted; but again, if battle is to be joined on the subject, it is better that it should be joined in another place. Therefore I shall not pursue the matter further beyond expressing my regret.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I am delighted to leave the matter to another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 23: After Clause 75 insert the following new clause:
Duty to give notice before taking certain action
".—(1) The creditor or owner is not entitled to enforce a term of a regulated agreement by—

(a) demanding earlier payment of any sum, or

(b) recovering possession of any goods or land, or

(c) treating any right of the debtor or hirer as terminated, restricted or deferred,

except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days' notice of his intention to do so.
(2) A notice under subsection (1) is ineffective if not in the prescribed form.
(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent a creditor from treating the right to draw on any credit as restricted or deferred.
(4) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements described by the regulations.
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to a right of enforcement arising by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the regulated agreement."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment represents the insertion of an entirely new clause after Clause 75. The new clause makes mandatory the service of a notice on the debtor or owner before the creditor or owner can become entitled to enforce a term of a regulated agreement, in the terms specified. Under the Bill as at present drafted, the creditor can in effect evade the default provisions where there is a repayment-on-demand provision in the agreement. After consideration, we have decided to extend the protection already provided in the case of default to all action taken to enforce accelerated provisions and regulated agreements. Whatever the term in his agreement the consumer will, under this clause, have seven days in which to take appropriate action before the term is enforced and can, if necessary, apply to the court for a time order under Amendment No. 51. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, on the face of it we have no objection to this new clause, but we have not had very long to consider it in much detail and again we may want to come back to it at a later stage in another place. But with that proviso we are quite happy with it at the moment.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell me where the form of notice is prescribed? I expect I should know.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I could not tell the noble Lord off the cuff, but I will see that we communicate and tell him exactly where it is.
LORD HAWKE: I wondered whether it was a slip of the draftsman. I wanted to be sure that somewhere the form of notice is prescribed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 82 [Liability for misuse of credit facilities]:
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, Amendment No. 24 is a drafting Amendment consequential on Amendments Nos. 3 and 4. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 43, line 14, leave out ("facilities") and insert ("facility").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 43, line 17, at end insert ("or to any loss in so far as it arises from misuse of a cheque").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in response to a point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, in moving an Amendment to this clause in Committee. He pointed out that as drafted the clause ignored the duty which existing law imposes on people who draw cheques to take reasonable care in drawing them. We do not wish to interfere with this duty, so this Amendment makes it clear that the clause does not relieve debtors from any liability which they may have under existing law as a result of misuse of a cheque. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I appreciate very much the efforts that the noble Lord has made to meet the point and he has gone a very long way in doing it. I am told that there is one strange reservation. Some articles that the ordinary man in the street would think were cheques I am told are not technically cheques, at least within the meaning of this clause and that therefore it may not stretch as far as them. I believe that cheques drawn for cash may come under that heading. But I am perfectly happy to leave it to the noble Lord to look into that narrow point, and if there is any substance in it I am sure he will see that it is dealt with at some later stage in the Bill. I appreciate the efforts he has made.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I understand that this is one of the technical points that will be discussed at an early meeting.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 84 [Duty on issue of new credit-tokens]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 44, line 11, leave out ("under the agreement").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 26 is a drafting Amendment to remove unnecessary words. I have pleasure in moving it.
LORD SEEBOHM: My Lords, this is to regulate the use of cheque cards and

1121
cash cards and we do not think that it quite puts right the objection we previously tabled under Clause 14. I hope that this can be further discussed with the Department. It can, I think, be put right fairly easily.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I understand that this is also one of the technical points for further discussion.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 85 [Death of debtor or hirer]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 44, line 25, leave out from ("only") to end of line 31.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment removes the latter part of Clause 85(2) which lays down the circumstances in which the court may make an order allowing the creditor or owner under a partly secured or unsecured regulated agreement to take certain action by reason of the death of the debtor or hirer. The deleted provisions are being transferred to Clause 128 as part of the amendments to Part IX of the Bill. Provisions governing actions by the court are now grouped in that Part of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 87 [Contents and effect of default notice]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 45, leave out line 41.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with an issue raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Mais. It deals with a problem that could arise if the creditor learned, before serving a default notice, that the debtor, who was in default under his agreement, was bankrupt.
As at present drafted, Clause 87(3) allows the creditor to restrict the debtor's right to draw credit from the time of service of a default notice. Under Clause 88(3) a default notice is deemed to be served on the day of delivery or the day after posting. The combined effect of these provisions is to impose a time-lag, depending on the means by which the notice is delivered, during which the creditor, even though he may know that
1122
a debtor who is in default is bankrupt, is unable to stop him drawing further credit.
The Amendment remedies this situation by removing the stipulation that the creditor must wait until the default notice has been served before restricting the right of a debtor who is in breach of his agreement to draw further credit. Under the clause, as amended, a bank upon notice of the bankruptcy of a debtor who was in breach of his agreement could immediately refuse him further credit. Lord Mais, in moving Amendment No. 77A to this clause in Committee, mentioned problems under this clause in relation to bankruptcy; and this specific point has been drawn to our attention in subsequent discussions with the clearing banks. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 88 [Service of default notice]:
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, Amendment No. 29 is a drafting Amendment to pave the way for Amendment No. 80 to Clause 171. As a result of the proposed Amendment to Clause 171, Clause 88 is no longer required and this Amendment accordingly deletes it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 88.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.58 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 98 insert the following new clause:
Duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases)
".—(1) The creditor or owner is not entitled to terminate a regulated agreement except by or after giving the debtor or hirer not less than seven days' notice of the termination.
(2) A notice under subsection (1) is ineffective if not in the prescribed form.
(3) Subsection (1) does not prevent a creditor from treating the right to draw on any credit as restricted or deferred.
(4) Regulations may provide that subsection (1) is not to apply to agreements described by the regulations.
(5) Subsection (1) does not apply to the termination of a regulated agreement by reason of any breach by the debtor or hirer of the agreement.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this clause is parallel to the new clause after

1123
Clause 75. It makes mandatory the service of a notice on the debtor or hirer before the creditor or owner can become entitled to terminate a regulated agreement. The clause also provides that a minimum of seven days' notice must be given before the termination takes effect. I beg to move.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, this clause has the same "prescribed notice" mentioned in it. Does the noble Lord remember now whereabouts it is to be found in the Bill? I do not wish him to take the trouble to write to me. I just wanted to check up that the draftsman has not erred over this matter.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, between the last time we mentioned "prescribed notice" and the present moment I have not had time to think about anything except the Amendments I have been moving. In the circumstances, I would prefer to communicate quite independently with the noble Lord, either in writing or verbally.
LORD HAWKE: I believe there is succour on the way!
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, "prescribed" means by regulations.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 105 [Form and content of securities]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 37:
Page 53, line 23, leave out ("or linked transaction").
Page 53,line 40, leave out ("(if a different person)").
Page 54, line 6, after ("security") insert—
("(a) provided by the debtor or hirer, or (b)")
Page 54,line 14 after ("(5)") insert ("(b)"). line 16, at end insert—
("(6A) If an application for an order under subsection (6) is dismissed (except on technical grounds only) section (Ineffective securities) (ineffective securities) shall accordingly apply to it.
(6B) Regulations under section 60(1) shall include provision requiring documents embodying regulated agreements also to embody any security provided in relation to a regulated agreement by the debtor or hirer.")
Page 54, line 18, leave out ("or prospective linked transaction").
Page 54, line 20, leave out ("or actual linked transaction").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 31 and 37, inclusive, together. There has been considerable confusion and disagreement about Clause 105. In particular, the clearing banks have objected that it would oblige them to comply with the provisions of the Bill whenever they took security which might later be used to secure a regulated agreement, even though it did not secure such an agreement when it was first given. For example, a customer might mortgage his house to a bank as a security for an overdraft granted to his company, which would be an unregulated agreement, and agree at the same time that it should also secure an overdraft which the bank might later grant to him personally, which would be a regulated agreement. The banks feared that in order to be safe in such a case they would have to comply with the Bill in taking the mortgage, even though at the time it was taken it did not secure a regulated agreement. This might complicate and delay ordinary business transactions. In the debate on the Amendment to this clause moved by the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, my noble friend Lord Shepherd explained that we intended to move Amendments to meet these points. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 31 to 37.
LORD SEEBOHM: My Lords, I am immensely grateful for the work which has gone into the Amendments to Clause 105. It may well be this satisfies our requirements; it is a complicated matter to understand, and I hope we may be allowed time to study it and discuss it if there is a point that we should like to raise later.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I rise to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Seebohm, and also because I feel the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—who is doing very well this afternoon—could do with a "breather". By taking these Amendments en bloc he has contrived to pass the post which marks one third of the course. I hope that he is in good voice and will continue to give us much help as he has done on the first third of the course.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I join with other noble Lords in expressing grateful thanks for the way that the

1125
noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has so far completely kept faith with the assurances he gave at an earlier stage that he would study the points raised. This is a clear example of the benefit flowing from the noble Lord concentrating solely on the Amendments with which he is dealing.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 38:
After Clause 105 insert the following new clause:
Ineffective securities
" . Where, under any provision of this Act, this section is applied to any security provided in relation to a regulated agreement then, subject to section 172 (saving for registered charges),—

(a) the security, so far as it is so provided, shall be treated as never having effect;

(b) any property lodged with the creditor or owner solely for the purposes of the security as so provided shall be returned by him forthwith;

(c) the creditor or owner shall take any necessary action to remove or cancel an entry in any register, so far as the entry relates to the security as so provided; and

(d) any amount received by the creditor or owner on realisation of the security shall, so far as it is referable to the agreement, be repaid to the surety."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a tidying-up Amendment. It transfers the provisions relating to ineffective securities from Clause 112(3) to a separate new clause, and applies the provisions to all cases under the Bill where a security is to be treated as ineffective. I beg to move.
Clause 110 [Default Notices]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 57, line 20, after ("notice") insert ("or a notice under section (Duty to give notice before taking certain action) (1), or (Duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases)) (1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 23 and 30 by which new provisions are introduced requiring the creditor or owner to give seven days' notice before taking certain action, such as demanding early repayment, and before terminating an agreement. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 57, line 24, after ("(1)") insert ("in the case of any surety").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, during Committee stage. Clause 110(1) provides that when a default notice is served on a debtor or hirer a copy of it must be served on any third party acting as surety. Clause 110(2) provides that if the creditor or owner fails to serve a default notice on the surety the security is enforceable on an order of the court only.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, expressed concern that, in cases where some security was provided by the debtor and some by a surety, the present wording of the clause might have the effect that failure to serve a copy of the default notice on the surety would render security provided by the debtor, as well as by the surety, unenforceable except by order of the court. We hold the view and we subsequently told the noble Lord by letter that this was not what we intended and was not what we were advised was the effect of the clause. But although we remain of that opinion we have decided to amend the clause slightly in order to make the meaning of it clear.
This Amendment, by including in sub-section (2) a specific reference to the surety, makes clear that failure to serve a copy of a default notice on a surety only affects security provided by the surety on whom no default notice has been served and does not affect security provided by the debtor or hirer or any other surety on whom a default notice was properly served.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, this is a matter which the Finance Houses Association were worried about. It is now quite clear. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
4.6 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 57, line 26, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which paves the way for the extensive amendments of Part IX of the Bill dealing with judicial control. Clause 110(3) at present gives guidance to the court as to the factors

1127
it shall consider in determining whether or not to make an order for the enforcement of a security in a case where the creditor or owner has failed to send a copy of a default or other notice on the surety. Provisions of this nature are now being grouped in Part IX of the Bill and this particular provision is now included in the new clause after Clause 125 which contains general guidance on enforcement orders in all cases of infringement under the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [Act not to be evaded by use of security]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 58, line 4, leave out ("only on an order made under section 40 or 65(1)") and insert ("on an order of the court or the Director only").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 112(2) provides that where the creditor or owner was unlicensed and, under Clause 40, an order by the Director is required before the agreement can be enforced, or the agreement was improperly executed and, under Clause 65(1), can only be enforced on an order of the court, any security provided in relation to the agreement can only be enforced after such orders have been made.
This Amendment widens this protection of the security. It ensures that in the case of contravention of the provisions of Clause 122 any security cannot be enforced until after the court has made an order for the enforcement of the agreement. And it also ensures that where a regulated agreement was made on the introduction of an unlicensed credit broker any security for the agreement will be enforceable only if the Director has made an order under Clause 145. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 58, line 8, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 28 and insert—

("(a) a regulated agreement is cancelled under section 69 or terminated under section 91, or

(b) in relation to any agreement an application for an order under section 40(2), 65(1), 123(1) or 145(2) is dismissed (except on technical grounds only), or

1128

(c) a declaration is made by the court under section (Power to declare rights of parties) (1) (refusal of enforcement order) as respects any regulated agreement,

section (Ineffective securities) shall apply to any security provided in relation to the agreement.
( ) Where subsection (1)(c) applies and the declaration relates to a part only of the regulated agreement, section (Ineffective securities) shall apply to the security only so far as it concerns that part.
( ) In the case of a cancelled agreement, the duty imposed on the debtor or hirer by section 71 or 72 shall not be enforceable before the creditor or owner has discharged any duty imposed on him by section (Ineffective securities) (as applied by subsection (1))").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment follows Amendment No. 38, which transfers the provisions relating to ineffective securities from Clause 112 to the new clause after Clause 105 and gives them general application to all cases of ineffective securities (for example, where the court has dismissed an application for enforcement of a security). The Amendment lays down how the provisions of the new clause are to apply to security provided in relation to an agreement that is cancelled or terminated or in respect of which the debtor obtains a declaration by the court under subsection (1) of the new clause (power to declare rights of parties) that the creditor or owner is not entitled to enforce the security. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.10 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 58, line 33, leave out from ("that") to ("apply") in line 34 and insert ("section (Ineffective securities) shall thereupon").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment on Amendment No. 38 by which the provisions relating to ineffective securities have been transferred from Clause 112(3) to the new clause following Clause 105. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 119 [Consequence of failure to redeem]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 61, line 6, leave out ("an instalment order under section 129") and insert ("a time order under section (Time orders)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment paves the way for the extensive Amendments proposed to Part IX of the Bill dealing with judicial control. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 123 [Consequences of breach of s. 122]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 62, line 39, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
("(3) Where an application for an order under subsection (2) is dismissed (except on technical grounds only) section (Ineffective securities) shall apply to the security").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, by the extensive amendment of Part IX of the Bill dealing with judicial control, provisions in relation to enforcement orders in cases of infringement under the Bill are now grouped in the new clause after Clause 125. There is, therefore, no need for these provisions in Clause 123 and this Amendment accordingly deletes them. At the same time the Amendment makes provision for what is to happen to the security if an application for an order to enforce it is dismissed by the court. This is done by reference to the new clause after Clause 105 which now makes provision for all cases of ineffective securities. An exception is made if the application is dismissed on technical grounds (for example, because of some technical error in court or other procedure) in which case the applicant merely has to apply again. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 125 [Enforcement of land mortgages]:
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 63, line 24, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) Where an application for an order under subsection (1) is dimissed (except on technical grounds only) section (Ineffective securities) shall apply to the land mortgage").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, during the Committee stage. Also it makes a consequential drafting amendment to the Amendments dealing with ineffective securities in the rest of Part VIII of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare,
1130
expressed concern that the present wording of the clause might result in a creditor losing his security when an application to enforce a land mortgage securing a regulated agreement was dismissed on purely technical grounds, that is, as a result of an error in court or other procedure. This was not the effect intended, and to make this clear a specific exception is made by this Amendment if an application is dismissed on technical grounds. I beg to move.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I was wondering what this Amendment meant. I am pleased to know that it meets my point and I am very grateful indeed.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.14 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 48:
After Clause 125 insert the following new clause:
Enforcement orders: general principles
(" . Where—

(a) under any provision of this Act a thing can be done by a creditor or owner on an order of the court (an "enforcement order") only, and

(b) the creditor or owner applies to the court for such an order,

then, subject to sections (Enforcement orders in cases of infringement) and (Enforcement order on death of debtor or hirer) and without prejudice to sections 136 to 138 (extortionate credit bargains), the court shall make the order if it is satisfied that, apart from that provision, the applicant would be entitled to do the act in question.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48 and also to speak to all Amendments up to and including Amendment No. 71 to Clause 139. I suspect that by the end of the day some of us may feel that the United States Congress have a very sensible provision by which speeches can appear in the printed report without having to be delivered. May I also say in regard to Amendment No. 48 that the reference in it to Sections 136 to 138 should be to Sections 135 to 138. It is a printing error.
My Lords, this is the most extensive group of Amendments with which we are dealing to-day, and these concern Part IX of the Bill. I forewarned the House that we were going to reorganise this Part during the Committee stage. Noble Lords will

1131
have seen the answer to a question from my noble friend Lord Raglan which appeared in yesterday's OFFICIAL REPORT and which sets out the main elements of the reorganisation; but it might also be useful if I run briefly over these as well as explaining the new elements we have introduced.
The first new clause that is covered by Amendment No. 48—"Enforcement orders: general principles"—is essentially a re-write of the present Clause 127(1). The second new clause, which is Amendment No. 49—"Enforcement orders in cases of infringement"—is made up of a large part of the present Clauses 128, 110(3) and 123(3). Subsection (1)(ii) of this new clause is new and consequential on other Amendments. The third new clause—that is, Amendment No. 50: "Enforcement order on death of debtor or hirer"—comes from Clause 85(2). The fourth new clause—Amendment No. 51: "Time orders"—contains a large part of Clause 129(1) but goes beyond that clause, in that it enables the court to give debtors and hirers not only time to pay sums of money which they owe but also time to do other things to remedy breaches of agreement by them. This is an important new protection for the consumer. For example, a debtor who has mortgaged his home as security for a loan might keep up with his payments but fail to keep the house in good repair, in breach of his agreement. We think that the debtor should be able to be given the opportunity to put right such breaches, and under the new "Time orders" provision the court could give him further time to carry out necessary repairs.
The fifth new clause—that is Amendment No. 52, "Supplemental provisions about time orders"—is based largely on the present Clauses 129, 130 and 133; but also in subsection (2) it provides that in the case of a hire-purchase or conditional sale only, a time order for payment by instalments may deal not only with sums already payable by the debtor but also with sums which would become payable later if the agreement continued in force. This provision is not in the Bill at present but is necessary to deal with cases where the creditor terminates a hire-purchase agreement but the court considers that the debtor should be able
1132
to go on and finally become the owner of the goods which he is buying under an agreement. It follows from this that the court must be able to deal with all of the sums payable under the agreement and not only with those which are due when a creditor terminates the agreement.
Subsection (5) is also new and provides that during the extra time given to the debtor or hirer he is protected against further action by the creditor or owner, in the same way as he would be between the time of service and the time of expiry of a default notice and that when the breach is remedied it should be treated as never having occurred.
The sixth new clause, which is Amendment No. 53—"Protection orders"—contains the present Clause 126(4).
The seventh new clause which is Amendment No. 61—"Power to impose conditions, or suspend operation of order"—contains the present Clause 129(5) and also introduces a new concept into the Bill, but one which exists in the present hire-purchase legislation. It enables a court to order a debtor to return goods to the creditor but to suspend this order for so long as the debtor keeps up payments which he has been ordered to make under a time order. If such a suspended order were made, then the creditor could enforce the debtor's duty to return the goods directly the debtor failed to make a payment. In particular, the creditor would not have to go back to the court if such an order were made. Suspended orders of this kind have been in hire-purchase legislation for many years, and may be in the interests of the debtor just as much as the creditor. It saves the creditor going back to the court if the debtor fails to keep up payments: and, when the debtor is content to let repossession take place, he is saved the bother of going back to the court a second time.
I should perhaps add that having made an order of this kind, the court can always vary it on the application of either party. This means that if such an order has been made and the debtor finds that he cannot keep up the payments, he does not have to allow the goods to be automatically repossessed but can apply to the court for a variation in the terms of the instalments he has to pay. The

1133
eighth new clause, which is Amendment No. 62, "Power to vary agreements and securities" contains the present Clauses 132 and 133(1)(a).
On a slightly different topic from our reorganisation of this Part, we have also tabled four Amendments to Clauses 136 and 137 to deal with points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, in Committee. I am sorry that he cannot be present, but we have been able to meet him and I believe he is satisfied with what we have done. He suggested that instead of requiring a court to have regard to the matters set out in Clause 136(2) in determining whether a credit bargain is extortionate, the Bill should provide merely that the court might have regard to them. We have accepted this suggestion in principle. The Amendment to Clause 136, which is Amendment No. 63, has the effect of requiring the court to have regard to the matters listed only if evidence is given about them. This means that the court will not be bound to consider them, nor will the parties be bound to give evidence about them. It is only if one party or another chooses to give evidence about them that the court will have to consider these matters.
The noble Viscount, Lord Colville, also thought that the courts might have difficulty in relation to the definition of "ordinary principles of fair dealing", and consequently the different interpretations that county courts might give to this phrase. My initial reaction, as I indicated in Committee, was that the Secretary of State should be able to define by Order such principles, but on further reflection we have come to the conclusion that this would be difficult and might set an unfortunate precedent. Any such code might be taken as a definitive and comprehensive statement of the ordinary principles of fair dealing and, therefore, as implying that any action not mentioned in it was not fair dealing. We consider that there are already adequate methods of establishing standards in the county courts and bringing relevant matters to their attention, and of allowing such matters to be adduced by creditors and others in their evidence.
Under Clause 26 the Secretary of State may make "conduct of business regulations". If there is any facet of conduct that the Secretary of State guided by the
1134
Director General considers harmful to the consumer and therefore against the ordinary principles of fair dealing, he would be able to make a suitable conduct of business regulation which would then be the law, and as such the county courts could have regard to it. The Director General will also have to publish regularly information about the licensing system, and it could well be that the Director General will wish to publish a regular news-sheet or similar publication to which those interested can subscribe. This could be used by the Director General to contain reports of any county court judgments that he thinks are relevant and these could be cited in subsequent cases. There is also the official publication entitled, Trade and Industry, which could be used to report any cases. In these various ways we consider that the county courts will be well apprised of the standards by which the ordinary principles of fair dealing are to be determined, without the need for any more formal arrangements which might have drawbacks in other areas.
The ninth new clause, Amendment No. 67, "Jurisdiction and parties" contains much from Clauses 126 and 129, but also deals in subsection (2) with a point that was again raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. He pointed out that there was no machinery in the Bill whereby an agreement which is brought in the High Court but which ought to have been brought in the county court could be transferred to the county court. Provision is now made for this. It might be asked why the Bill does not contain a similar provision about actions commenced in the county court, but which ought to have been commenced in the High Court. The reason is that this is already dealt with by Section 66 of the County Courts Act 1959.
The tenth new clause, "Power to declare rights of parties", is completely new. It enables the court to declare what the rights of parties are in cases where otherwise there might be doubt. For example, an agreement which has been improperly executed is enforceable against the debtor on an order of the court only, and thus security for it is also enforceable on an order of the court only. If a debtor had mortgaged his house as security for a loan but was advised that the agreement was improperly executed, as a result he might

1135
stop paying his creditor. The creditor may not bother to sue him, because he has a registered mortgage on the debtor's home and is sure that he will get his money when the debtor wants to sell his house but finds that he cannot because of the mortgage.
In such a case there must therefore be a method whereby the debtor can get the security removed. This clause provides that in such a case the debtor will be able to ask the court to look at the matter to decide whether or not a court order would be needed by the creditor and whether he would get a court order, and to declare in a proper case that, in fact, the creditor had no right to enforce the agreement. If the court makes such a declaration, then under Clause 112(3)(b) as amended, and the new clause "Ineffective securities", the mortgage is treated as ineffective and the creditor would be under a duty to remove it from the register. The only other Amendments in Part IX are some consequential ones to Clause 139 dealing with the jurisdiction of the county court in Northern Ireland. I apologise for the length of my statement, but I thought I would take the Amendments together instead of treating each one separately. Certainly, if any doubts arise between now and the next stage of the Bill I shall be only too happy to discuss them with any noble Lord, or for that matter with any organisation.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 125 insert the following new clause:
Enforcement orders: general principles"
" . Where—

(a) under any provision of this Act a thing can be done by a creditor or owner on an order of the court (an "enforcement order") only, and

(b) the creditor or owner applies to the court for such an order,

then, subject to sections (Enforcement orders in cases of infringement) and (Enforcement order on death of debtor or hirer) and without prejudice to sections 135 to 138 (extortionate credit bargains), the court shall make the order if it is satisfied that, apart from that provision, the applicant would be entitled to do the act in question."—(Lord Shepherd.)
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for that comprehensive statement and I congratulate him on his grasp of these very tricky
1136
matters of judicial control. I know that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross will be most grateful for the Amendments, that have met points he raised in the Committee stage. I know that he had hoped to be here this afternoon but he had an engagement outside London, and we have made such good progress on the Report stage that he has obviously not arrived here in time. In any case, I doubt whether even my noble friend's mind could have grasped the full implication of the very considerable recasting of Part IX of the Bill, and it will undoubtedly take time to absorb it. So I would say to the noble Lord that we shall certainly take up his offer of coming to talk to him before the next stage of the Bill, if my noble friend thinks that there are points which he would like clarified.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful. Perhaps I omitted one thing. I should now like to express a very sincere word of appreciation to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Not only was his intervention in Committee valuable, but his meetings afterwards were even more valuable, and as a consequence of this interchange certain parts of this Bill are in a much better shape than they were.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49:
Amendment moved—
After Clause 125 insert the following new clause:
Enforcement orders in cases of infringement
".—(1) In the case of an application for an enforcement order under—

(a) section 65(1) (improperly executed agreements), or

(b) section 105(6)(a) or (b) (improperly executed security instruments), or

(c) section 110(2) (failure to serve copy of notice on surety), or

(d) section 123(1) or (2) (taking of negotiable instrument in contravention of section 122),

the court may dismiss the application if it considers it just to do so having regard to—

(i) prejudice caused to any person by the contravention in question, and the degree of culpability for it; and

(ii) the powers conferred on the court by subsection (2) and sections (Power to impose conditions or suspend operation of order)

1137
and (Power to vary agreements and securities).

(2) If it appears to the court just to do so, it may in an enforcement order under any provision mentioned in subsection (1) reduce or discharge any sum payable by the debtor or hirer, or any surety, so as to compensate him for prejudice suffered as a result of the contravention in question.
(3) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).
(4) The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) in the case of a cancellable agreement if—

(a) a provision of section 62 or 63 was not complied with, and the creditor or owner did not give a copy of the executed agreement, and of any other document referred to in it, to the debtor or hirer before the commencement of the proceedings in which the order is sought, or

(b) section 64(1) was not complied with.

(5) Where an enforcement order is made in a case to which subsection (3) applies, the order may direct that the regulated agreement is to have effect as if it did not include a term omitted from the document signed by the debtor or hirer."—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 50.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause:
ENFORCEMENT ORDER ON DEATH OF DEBTOR OR HIRER
" . The court shall not make an enforce-men order under section 85(2) unless—

(a) the creditor or owner proves that he has been unable to make satisfactory arrangements with the deceased's personal representatives for the carrying out of the regulated agreement, or

(b) there as no such personal representatives."—(Lord Shepherd.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I spoke to the series of Amendments up to Amendment No. 71. It is perhaps subject to correction, but I think we can take up to Amendment No. 71 en bloc. If that would be the agreement of the House, I would so propose it. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 51 to 71 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
After Clause 125, insert the following new clause:

TIME ORDERS
" .—(1) If it appears to the court just to do so—

(a) on an application for an enforcement order; or

(b) on an application made by a debtor or hirer under this paragraph after service on him of—

(i) a default notice, or

(ii) a notice under section (Duty to give notice before taking certain action) (1) or (Duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases)) (1); or

(c) in an action brought by a creditor or owner to enforce a regulated agreement or any security, or recover possession of any goods or land to which a regulated agreement relates,

the court may make an order under this section (a "time order").
(2) A time order shall provide for one or both of the following as the court considers just—

(a) the payment by the debtor or hirer or any surety of any sum owned under a regulated agreement or a security by such instalments, payable at such times, as the court, having regard to the means of the debtor or hirer and any surety, considers reason able;

(b) the extension or further extension of a period specified in a default notice under section 87(1)(b)."

After Clause 125 insert the following new clause:
Supplemental provisions about time orders
" .—(1) Where in accordance with rules of court an offer to pay any sum by instalments is made by the debtor or hirer and accepted by the creditor or owner, the court may in accordance with rules of court make a time order under section (Time orders) (2)(a) without hearing evidence of means if the order is not more onerous to the debtor or hirer than that offer.
(2) In the case of a hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement only, a time order under section (Time orders) (2)(a) may deal with sums which, although not payable by the debtor at the time the order is made, would if the agreement continued in force become payable under it subsequently.
(3) A time order under section (Time orders) (2)(a) shall not be made where the regulated agreement is secured by a pledge if, by virtue of regulations made under section (Duty to give notice before taking certain action) (4), 86(3) or (Duty to give notice of termination (non-default cases)) (4), service of a notice is not necessary for enforcement of the pledge.
(4) Where, following the making of a time order in relation to a regulated hire-purchase or conditional sale agreement or a regulated consumer hire agreement, the debtor or hirer is in possession of the goods, he shall be treated (except in the case of a debtor to whom the creditor's title has passed) as a bailee or

1139
(in Scotland) a custodier of the goods under the terms of the agreement, notwithstanding that the agreement has been terminated.
(5) Where a time order under section (Time orders) (2)(b) is made, sections 87 and 89 shall apply with such modifications as are necessary to give effect to the order.
(6) On the application of any person affected by a time order, the court may vary or revoke the order."
After Clause 125 insert the following new clause:
Protection orders
" . The court, on the application of the creditor or owner under a regulated agreement, may make such orders as it thinks just for protecting any property of the creditor or owner or property subject to any security, from damage or depreciation pending the determination of any proceedings under this Act, including orders restricting or prohibiting use of the property or giving directions as to its custody."

Leave out Clause 126.

Leave out Clause 127.

Leave out Clause 128.

Leave out Clause 129.

Leave out Clause 130.

Leave out Clause 132.

Clause 133, page 69, line 1, leave out subsection (7).
After Clause 134 insert the following new clause:
Power to impose conditions, or suspend operation of order
".—(1) If it considers it just to do so, the court may in an order made by it in relation to a regulated agreement include provisions—

(a) making the operation of any term of the order conditional on the doing of specified acts by any party to the proceedings;

(b) suspending the operation of any term of the order either—

(i) until such time as the court subsequently directs, or

(ii) until the occurrence of a specified act or omission.

(2) In the case of a consumer hire agreement, the court shall not so use its powers under subsection (1)(b) as to extend the period for which, under the terms of the agreement, the hirer is entitled to possession of the goods to which the agreement relates.
(3) On the application of any person affected by a provision included under subsection (1), the court may vary the provision."
After Clause 134 insert the following new clause:
Power to vary agreements and securities
" . The court may in an order made by it under this Act include such provision as it considers just for amending any agreement
1140
or security in consequence of a term of the order."
Clause 136, page 70, line 8, after ("to") insert ("such evidence as is adduced concerning").
Clause 137, page 70, line 31, after ("may") insert ("if the court thinks just"),
Clause 137, Page 70, line 33, leave out ("within the prescribed period").
Clause 137, Page 70, line 42, leave out ("initiated within the prescribed period").
After Clause 138, insert the following new clause:
Jurisdiction and parties
" .—(1) The county court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine—

(a) any action by the creditor or owner to enforce a regulated agreement or any security relating to it;

(b) any action to enforce any linked transaction against the debtor or hirer or his relative;

(c) any application for the grant of an enforcement order

(d) any application for the grant, variation or revocation of a time order, or the variation of a provision included under section (Power to impose conditions or suspend operation of order) (1).

and such an action or application shall not be brought in any other court.
(2) Where an action or application is brought in the High Court which, by virtue of subsection (1), ought to have been brought in the county court it shall not be treated as improperly brought, but shall be transferred to the county court.
(3) In Scotland the sheriff court for the district in which the debtor or hirer resides or carries on business, or resided or carried on business at the date on which he last made a payment under the agreement, shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine any action or application falling within subsection (1) and such an action or application shall not be brought in any other court.
(4) Except as may be provided by rules of court, all the parties to a regulated agreement, and any surety, shall be made parties to any proceedings relating to the agreement."
After Clause 135 insert the following new clause:
Power to declare rights of parties
" .—(1) Where under any provision of this Act a thing can be done by a creditor or owner on an enforcement order only, and either—

(a) the court dismisses (except on technical grounds only) an application for an enforcement order, or

(b) where no such application has been made or such an application has been dismissed on technical grounds only, the debtor or hirer, or any surety, applies to the court for a declaration under this subsection,

the court may if it thinks just make a declaration that the creditor or owner is not entitled

1141
to do that thing, and thereafter no application for an enforcement order in respect of it shall be entertained.
(2) Where a regulated agreement is cancelled under section 69 or terminated under section 91, and the debtor or hirer applies to the court for a declaration under this subsection, the court may make a declaration that the agreement was so cancelled or terminated."
Clause 139, page 72, line 5, after ("action") insert ("or application")
Clause 139, Page 72, line 5, leave out ("126(1)") and insert ("(Jurisdiction and parties) (1)")
Clause 139, Page 72,line 11, leave out from ("application") to ("and") in line 12, and insert ("by a debtor or hirer or any surety under section (Time orders) (1)(b) or (Power to declare rights of parties) (1)(b)").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 147 [Advertisements]:
4.35 p.m.
LORD ELTON LORD ELTON moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 76, line 38, after ("person or") insert ("the services of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, after the rumble and crash of the bulldozers and rebuilding we are getting to the exact opposite end of the scale with respect to a very small Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that I drew your attention to this small point at Committee stage. In the clause as printed, one naturally assumes at first reading that we are considering only one category of people. That category consists of that "person or persons to whom he", that is the broker, "effects introductions". By taking the words, "person or persons" as standing together as a single phrase, which would be the normal usage, one has used up the alternative expressed in the word "or" before one has reached the end of the sentence; on reaching the end therefore one is left suspended awaiting the arrival of another "or" to satisfy the expectations aroused by one's encounter with the word "whether". In fact, we are in this clause considering not one but two categories of people. I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for explaining this to me in his letter. The two classes of people are, on the one hand, the broker, himself, and on the other those persons to whom he, the broker, effects introductions. The intention
1142
of this Amendment is to make this clear by breaking up the phrase "person or persons". This may already be clear to other noble Lords learned in the law, but to non-specialist noble Lords like myself it is not. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will accept this Amendment and the helpful spirit in which it is advanced. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in view of the length of my previous speech, I think it behoves me to be brief. We are very happy with this Amendment, and are prepared to accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 157 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 81, line 29, after ("person") insert ("(i)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 73, and also to speak to Amendment No. 74. Clause 157(1)(b) empowers a duly authorised officer of an enforcement authority who has reasonable cause to suspect a breach of the Bill to require the production of books and documents. This power may not cover information stored in computers which are widely used in the credit granting industry. To remedy this possible loophole, the Amendment requires a person having control of such information to provide a legible reproduction; for example, a print-out. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 74.
Amendment moved—
Page 81, line 31, after ("it") insert—"
"(or—
(ii) having control of any information relating to a business recorded otherwise than in a legible form to provide a document containing a legible reproduction of the whole or any part of the information").(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 163 [Defences]:
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 75. In light of the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is not in his place, I think the

1143
rule is that another noble Lord may move. We accept that there is some oddity in this matter, and we are prepared to accept the Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 36, leave out ("the commission of the offence") and insert ("his act or omission").—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 76.
Amendment moved—
Page 84, line 41, leave out ("the commission of such an offence") and insert ("such an act or omission").(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I come before the House in abject apology. I was trying to be helpful, and I mistook my piece of paper. I am quite certain that the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, also knew that I was wrong but he did not rise to get me out of my difficulties. Perhaps since this is the last of the three Amendments, if I were to explain the Government's position and then on the next stage of the Bill, having got your Lordships' support for the view, persuade the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to allow me to take out the two previous Amendments which have gone on to the—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, might it be better and in order if someone were to move Amendment No. 77 so that the noble Lord could object to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 2, leave out ("commission of the offence") and insert ("act or omission").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the offending noble Lord has now walked into the Chamber. We accept that it is odd to refer to the commission of an offence in a clause which relates to a situation in which a person has been charged but not at this stage convicted of an offence. Indeed, the clause sets out a defence which is available in the circumstances described. If the clause could be considered in isolation, we would be happy to accept the Amendment as proposed to meet the criticism which can be levelled at the present text. But there is a problem,
1144
and I think the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, will be ready to spring to my assistance. Clause 163(1) follows Section 24(1) of the Trade Descriptions Act 1963, and Section 25(1) of the Fair Trading Act 1973. All these provisions will be enforced by the local weights and measures authority and it will be possible for a trader to be charged with an offence under, for example, the Trade Descriptions Act and the Consumer Credit Act, and in each case to plead the defence provided. Confusion might ensue if the Bill were worded differently from the other two enactments in this respect. Since its meaning is clear, we think that the words that are in the Bill as now drafted should remain.
My Lords, this is a view which I sought to pursue to-day and I have been convinced that it is so—that there would be doubt with legislation for a similar purpose or general purpose; if one had a different phrase in one Bill from that in the other two places one could raise an area of doubt, particularly in the magistrates' courts. Although one can say that the wording is perhaps better within the Amendment the noble Lord has in mind, it would create considerable difficulty and doubt within the courts. So, having accepted the first two Amendments, which I should not have done, I hope that the noble Lord will agree that it would be right that we should not accept his third one, and will devise ways and means of removing the previous two Amendments.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I confess that my intervention was not based on a close study of either these Amendments or the two Acts to which the noble Lord has referred. I must say that I think my inclination would be, in a moment, to withdraw this Amendment. But since the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has now arrived and no doubt will have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has had to say, perhaps for the moment I could suspend my application to withdraw so that he may intervene.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am sorry for not having been in my place. Your Lordships seem to have been making extraordinarily quick progress and I was taken unaware. I shall clearly have to consider what the Minister has

1145
said about the Amendment. For the time being, I will place myself in the hands of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, as to what should be done. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount for having stepped into my shoes.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, since the noble Lord the Leader of the House came close to chiding me for not coming to his assistance, I would say that he has been so helpful to me that I would have leapt to his assistance if I had had the temerity to think—since he gave the appearance of changing his mind—he had not acted without the deepest consideration.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 165 [No further sanctions for breach of Act]:
4.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD: moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 85, line 23, leave out ("adjudicating").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I cannot go wrong here. Clause 165(2) at present allows the Director to take account of breaches of the Bill in exercising his adjudicating functions. This is too narrow. It would be absurd if the Director, in exercising an administrative function, had to ignore breaches of the Bill. For example, it would be relevant to whether the Director should make a determination under Clause 49(3) allowing canvassing of overdraft agreements if the creditor had repeatedly committed offences under Clause 49(1) or 49(2). The Amendment removes the limitation by allowing the Director to take into account breaches of the Bill in exercising any of his functions. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 167 [Statements by creditor or owner to be binding]:
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 86, line 29, leave out ("established a defence under") and insert ("proved the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment remedies a defect in Clause 167 as amended in Committee. Clause 167(3), which was added by Government amendment in Committee, enables creditors and owners to escape being bound by Clause 167 in respect of statements and notices given by them if the count is satisfied that, if prosecuted for failure to give a correct statement, they could have established a defence under Clause 163(1)—that is, the mistake in the statement was outside their control. However, as drafted, the clause does not make clear whether Clause 163(2) is relevant to satisfying the court in this regard. That subsection provides that if a defence under Clause 163(1) invokes the allegation that an offence was the fault of another person seven days' notice must be given to the court identifying the person concerned.
It is not the intention that a creditor relying on Clause 167(3) should have to give notice identifying the person responsible before he can satisfy the court in proceedings concerning a mistake in a statement. The Amendment accordingly replaces the words "established a defence under" Clause 163(1) with the words
"proved the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) of …"
This makes it clear that the creditor does not have to identify the person responsible before showing that the mistake in a statement was outside the creditor's control. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD SEEBOHM: My Lords, this question of mistakes is a difficult one and I do not think we quite have the answer. The banks are not happy with this. It does not go back to existing law. We should very much like to have further conversations and look at it again, if it is possible to do that.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my door is always open and clearly there is another stage, or series of stages, in another place. If the noble Lord would like to see the Minister who will be responsible for the Bill in another place, which may be helpful, I should be happy to arrange it.
LORD SEEBOHM: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much. As this is

1147
perhaps the last time I shall speak on this Bill, I should like formally to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and his colleagues for the amount of attention they have given to the clearing banks' case, which has been enormously helpful.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 171 [Service of notices etc.]:
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, Clause 88 which dealt with the service of default notices has been left out of the Bill by a previous Amendment, No. 29; and this Amendment transfers the provisions thereof to Clause 171. It is therefore consequential. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 13, at end insert—
("(3) Without prejudice to any other way of giving or serving it, a notice under section (Duty to give notice before taking certain action) (1), a default notice or a notice under section (Duty to give notice of determination (non-default cases)) (1) is properly served on the person who is a debtor or hirer under an agreement if it is addressed to the person last known to the creditor or owner as the debtor or hirer under that agreement, and is delivered at or sent by post to, the address of that person last known to the creditor or owner.
(4) As respects the service of notices such as are referred to in subsection (3), section 9 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925 and section 3 of the Administration of Estates Act (Northern Ireland) 1955 (vesting of estate of intestate in Probate Judge) shall be disregarded.
(5) A notice served under subsection (3) shall be treated as served on the day of delivery or the day following the day of posting, as the case may be.")—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 176 [Power to alter monetary limits etc.]:
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 together. They are both purely drafting Amendments which are consequential on an Amendment to Clause 8 which was agreed in Committee. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 23, leave out ("8(1)") and insert ("8(2)").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to movement Amendment No. 82.
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 27, leave out ("8(1)") and insert ("8(2)").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Examples of use of new terminology]:
4.45 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will move Amendments Nos. 83 to 85. These are all drafting Amendments to pave the way for Amendment No. 87 by which we are proposing to add in a new example to those given in Schedule 2 in order to illustrate how the new provisions being added to Clause 18 will work. My Lords, I beg to move these Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 107, line 15, after ("22") insert ("23");
Page 107, line 22, after ("17") insert ("23");
Page 107, line 31, after ("18") insert ("23").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 113, line 4, after ("£7,000") insert ("(having regard to payments into the account made from time to time by J)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is in response to a point raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby. He suggested that it was not clear from the facts in Example 19 in Schedule 2 that the agreement described was a running account agreement as stated in the Analysis. The Amendment, by inserting into the facts in the Example a reference to "payments into the account made from time to time by the" debtor, makes it clear that the Example is dealing with a running account credit. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD HELSBY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for this Amendment which covers the point I raised. I still feel that possibly we have been taking a somewhat broad view of what is a running account, but that is something that may come out in further discussion on Clause 10. I agree that, so far as this example goes, it is now in accordance with the definition of "running account credit" in Clause 10. May I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the noble

1149
Lord the Leader of the House for the kindness they have done to me, and other noble Lords who have had an interest in this matter, on behalf of the clearing banks.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 114, line 36, at end insert—
("EXAMPLE 23
Facts. Under an oral agreement made on 10th January, X (an individual) has an overdraft on his current account at the Y bank with a credit limit of £100. On 15th February, when his overdraft stands at £90, X draws a cheque for £25. It is the first time that X has exceeded his credit limit, and on 16th February the bank honours the cheque.
Analysis. The agreement of 10th January is a consumer credit agreement for running-account credit. The agreement of 15th-16th February varies the earlier agreement by adding a term allowing the credit limit to be exceeded merely temporarily. By section 81(2) the later agreement is deemed to revoke the earlier agreement and reproduce the combined effect of the two agreements. By section 81(4), Part V of this Act (except section 56) does not apply to the later agreement. By section 18(5) a term allowing a merely temporary excess over the credit limit is not to be treated as a separate agreement, or as providing fixed-sum credit. The whole of the £115 owed to the hank by X on 16th February is therefore running-account credit.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment adds a new example to the examples given in Schedule 2 in order to illustrate how the new provisions which are being added to Clause 18 by Amendment No. 8 will work. My Lords, I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, the inclusion of these examples in the Bill is a very interesting innovation and it will be extremely interesting as a guide in the future to see how they work out in practice.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 183 [Definitions]:
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, Clause 41(3) empowers the Secretary of State to include in directions for disposing of an appeal against a licensing, et cetera, decision of the Director a direction for payment of costs. The Scottish term for "costs" is "expenses". The Amendment covers this technicality. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 22, at end insert—
(""costs", in relation to Scotland, means expenses").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on the new clause on Enforcement orders: general principles, which was dealt with in Amendment No. 48. It replaces and amends Clause 127 in the Bill. My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 33, at end insert (""enforcement order" has the meaning given by section (Enforcement orders: general principles) (a)").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 97, line 13, after ("means") insert ("subject to section 171").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is purely consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 100, line 32, leave out ("88") and insert ("171").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequential on the deletion of Clause 88 by Amendment No. 29, and the transfer of its provision to Clause 171 by Amendment No. 80. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 101, line 11, at end insert—
(""technical grounds" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (4A)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendments in earlier clauses; namely, Clauses 105, 124 and 126. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 101, line 13, at end insert (""time order" has the meaning given by section (Time orders) (1)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 93 is consequential on the new clause on time orders which

1151
introduces into the Bill the new concept of a time order allowing the debtor or hirer time to pay or put right a breach of an agreement. Since it is purely consequential, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 101, line 39, leave out ("term if the term") and insert ("provision if the provision")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 94 is consequential on Amendments Nos. 31 to 37 to Clause 105. This Amendment meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Helsby, in Committee. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 101, line 40, at end insert—
("(4A) An application dismissed by the court or the Director shall, if the court or the Director (as the case may be) so certifies, be taken to be dismissed on technical grounds only.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendments made to earlier clauses, namely, Clauses 105, 124 and 126. Since this Amendment is purely consequential, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3.—[Transitional and commencement provisions]:
4.55 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 117, line 5, leave out ("Sections 106 and 107 come") and insert ("Section 110 comes")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which is consequential on the drafting Amendment made in Committee which combined what had been in Clauses 106 and 107 into what is new Clause 110. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, may I take advantage of this Amendment just to say one thing. This Schedule deals with transitional arrangements. I should like only to express the hope—and I am sure Ministers will feel this themselves—that when it comes to fixing
1152
the appointed days, account will be given of the adjustments that will have to be made by the credit-giving institutions to bring their arrangements in line with the Bill.
My Lords, as this may be the last opportunity that I shall have to speak on this Bill, may I pay a respectful tribute to the invariable courtesy we have received from the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Jacques, throughout each stage of the Bill. Just now, when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, inadvertently accepted an Amendment when he meant to oppose it with vehemence the slight blush that suffused his benign features was most endearing when looked at from this side of the House.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it had been my intention that that was the last occasion that I would speak on this Bill. I am not certain whether I am going to persuade my noble friend Lord Jacques to take the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and retrieve the error to which the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, referred.
My Lords, as this is the last occasion that I shall speak on this Bill, I should like to express to everyone—to the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and the many others who sit in all quarters of the House—our gratitude for the effort that has been put into this Bill both on the Floor of the House and in various Committee Rooms, which has ensured that we have now a very much better Bill than the one originally introduced in another place, and which was introduced initially. On the other hand, if I may be slightly provocative, I really wonder—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, might consider this point—whether a Bill of this nature, recognising all its complexities, would not better go to a small Select Committee where the more intimate conversation and the greater access to papers would give a much better arrangement for dealing with a Bill of this kind, rather than trying to deal with it on the Floor of your Lordships' House. This is only a matter of reflection so far as I am concerned. I do not propose to be a great innovator of change in your Lordships' House as long as I am Leader of it; if change comes, it will be forced on me. However, I wonder whether, when we have a Bill of similar complexity in future, this is

1153
something we might consider through the usual channels in the interests of the House as a whole, in seeking a better procedure, particularly for the Committee stage.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I wish to intervene to say only two things. First, I would say that the suggestion which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has just made is one that I am sure will be considered by my noble friends whose business it is. Secondly, I would echo the tributes paid to my noble friend Lord Amory, and would add another, to the stamina and fleetness of foot of the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in dealing with 96 Amendments in approximately even time—96 minutes, if I am right. The high percentage of the Amendments from other Benches which were accepted, and the alacrity with which they were accepted, made me a little regretful that we did not ourselves put down more Amendments. But much progress was made outside Parliament. Clearly, this was the right way to do it. We are most grateful for the way in which the matter has been handled.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

COUNTER-INFLATION (PRICE AND PAY CODE) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1974
4.59 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR rose to move, That the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) (Amendment) Order 1974, be approved. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) (Amendment) Order 1974 be approved. I understand it will be for the convenience of the House if we also debate the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1974 at the same time. The alacrity with which the previous business was conducted necessitated a somewhat headlong chase to your Lordships' House. I apologise for the resulting confusion which took place when I was standing in another place.
My Lords, the first Amendment Order, Statutory Instrument 661, was made to allow traders to pass on to the customer
1154
the increases in excise duty and the extension of the V.A.T. announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement. Although the Order has been in operation since April 5, the Counter-Inflation Act provides that it will lapse until it is approved by each House of Parliament. The second Amendment Order, Statutory Instrument 785, puts into effect the proposals we made on taking Office to tighten the existing price control. This Order also needs the approval of each House of Parliament.
Recent experience has demonstrated that there can be no effective policy for dealing with inflation without the wholehearted consent of the people. The measures that we have taken in the Budget have been a start. The Orders which your Lordships are debating to-day are intended to further the Government's aim of increasing consumer confidence and doing what we can to check the rate of inflation. At the same time we fully recognise the importance of ensuring that manufacturers and traders see a good prospect of a reasonable return. That is why we have tried to strike a balance between the need to protect consumers on the one hand and to reward manufacturers and traders on the other. We are also determined to protect those who suffer most from inflation for example, we have improved the pensioners' benefits, and we are acting directly on key prices of maximum concern to the ordinary householder.
The purpose of Order 661 is to regulate the way in which indirect tax increases may be reflected in prices. This is something that was not explicitly covered in the existing Price Code. Following the Budget it seemed to us right that traders should be able to pass on indirect tax increases without great difficulty. It was also important at the same time to ensure that no one should make a profit on an indirect tax. The cash amount of a tax increase alone should be passed on. There are consequential provisions to ensure that the rule is applied in all calculations relevant to the Price Code. There is also a balancing provision for future tax reductions, requiring that they must be fully reflected in price reductions. The Code now makes it absolutely clear that these have to be passed on to the consumer.
It has been suggested, however, that for all its good intentions the Order is technically at fault because it purports to be retrospective, and this is a point which has been put to the House by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its Fourth Report. The point arises because although the Order did not come into force until April 5 it refers back to tax increases imposed after March 25, and, on the face of it, that may look a bit odd. But all the Order actually does is to say that, as from April 5, prices may contain an addition to reflect a tax increase. It does nothing to authorise price increases before April 5, nor to change in any other way the position before then, so that there is no element of retrospection in it at all.
The second Order, Statutory Instrument 785, is based on proposals published in a Consultative Document on March 25, and represents a determined effort to ensure that those who need it most gain most from the impact of the Price Code. The Order tightens the Price Code in three respects. First, it sets a general three-month interval between price increases for manufacturers and service industries. Secondly, it reduces by 10 per cent. the limits of distributors' gross percentage margins. Thirdly, it restricts upward re-pricing by retailers of goods that are bought frequently by the public. The basic objective of the three-month rule is to stagger price increases made by manufacturers and by service enterprises under the Code. This should help to check the frequency of price increases and consequently make some contributions, together with the labelling requirements of the Prices Bill, towards restoring consumer confidence. It should also assist the distribution industry in exercising restraint.
We recognise that with the cost pressures that are in the pipeline, it is essential to provide industry with reasonable safeguards, and we have discussed these fully with industry. It is certainly not our intention to cripple industry but to increase its contribution towards checking inflation at this particularly critical time. Paragraphs 74, 74A and 80 of the Prices and Pay Code on cuts in distributors' margins are at the heart of the current phase of prices policy. As noble Lords will remember, the Price Commission
1156
under paragraph 80, as drafted by the previous Administration, had decided that from April 1, 1974, food distributors' permitted gross margins, other than for the Category 3 enterprises—that is to say for the smaller traders—should be cut by 10 per cent. On taking Office we judged that although the situations may not be the same there was no reason why the non-food trade should not make a similar contribution. At the same time we made paragraph 80 more flexible, enabling the Price Commission to alter gross margins both upwards and downwards where particular circumstances justified this.
In the course of consultation we took account of the pressures on the distribution sector, particularly on the small trader. We have provided exemptions for the small retailer and wholesaler, although both are bound to face the stiffer competition from those having to make price reductions. We have also provided a general profit margin safeguard for distributors, similar to that in existence for manufacturers. Throughout the debates on the previous Administration's counter-inflation programme we stressed that the consumer is concerned with actual prices of actual products in the shops and not with gross or net profit margins. In the course of consultations we have tried to obtain traders' agreement to concentrate the margin cuts on items of maximum concern to the most needy. As the Secretary of State has said in another place, she is engaged in discussions with the Retail Consortium and others on a voluntary agreement to coordinate on a national basis what would be best commercial practice in current circumstances. Indeed many supermarkets have already made welcome significant price reductions on some of the most senstive items as a result of the margin cuts on food. It is our hope that this practice can be extended as a result of the Amendment to the Code.
Paragraph 77A restricts the repricing of goods. This provision has the support of all the consumer organisations and of the retail trade, who regard irresponsible repricing as not the best practice. In the course of consultations we sought to meet many of the points of practical difficulty brought to our notice, and we have made specific exceptions as necessary. Broadly speaking, the provision will

1157
apply to goods bought frequently as part of the weekly household budget and not to durable goods bought less frequently. We have also given the Price Commission discretion to allow customary trade practices where these are not against the consumers' interest, and after consultation with the trade the Commission will be providing information about the interpretation of this provision.
My Lords, in conclusion, I think it is fair to say that the three measures contained in the No. 2 Amendment Order strike a fair belance between the interests of manufacturers and distributors on the one hand and those of consumers and wage earners on the other. They are each moderate measures in themselves, but they demonstrate clearly the determination of the Government to act directly on behalf of the consumer, whatever the difficulties. Industry and the retail trades have, we think, as much to gain from the containment of inflation and the restoration of consumer confidence as the wage earner himself. These Code Amendments are part of a prices policy aimed at creating the appropriate climate for wage moderation on the lines that the Trade Union Congress is advocating. They are indeed an essential ingredient in the social compact which, in the view of the Government, is in the interests of the community as a whole. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) (Amendment) Order 1974, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I rise to speak with rather more nervousness than usual because, although I have worked in your Lordships' House for a number of years, both in and out of Government, I believe this is the first time that I have tangled with a Lord Chancellor, even so kindly a Lord Chancellor as the noble and learned Lord. Elements of retrospective legislation arising from these Orders have caused a number of my honourable friends in another place some concern. Perhaps it is because I am a layman that I confess that I am not myself over-anxious on this score, and I am very prepared to give noble Lords opposite the benefit of the doubt. It is always irritating to have to carry out the policies of one's predecessors,
1158
especially if one has thundered against many such policies, and especially indeed if one's own bacon is being saved by their continuing.
Let us be in no doubt that, as the noble and learned Lord said, the important issue in British politics to-day, the overriding issue, if one excepts only the pursuit of peace and stability in Northern Ireland, is the containment of inflation. We must judge these Orders overall, complex as they are in detail, in the context of this fight against inflation. Noble Lords opposite, as is well known, have chosen to concentrate their fire on the prices part of the battlefield. They have made this quite clear, and it is an honourable thing to do. They want industry and commerce to take the major role in the battle, hence the terms of this Order and hence the words of the noble and learned Lord when he said that he wished industry to increase its cooperation in fighting inflation—though I should have thought that industry has indeed been taking the major burden all along.
Mrs. Shirley Williams is much nicer than most sergeant-majors, at least in my experience, but sergeant-major she surely is, dragooning retailers in particular about the exact ways in which they must respond to the Government's fiscal behaviour. Remember, my Lords, that under the last Government they already had quite enough to contend with in this area. I accept of course that any prices legislation will involve direction and interference. The question is, how much and how often? There have been rumours of a mini-Budget in the autumn. Will we be going through this procedure again at that time? The last Government aimed its prices policy very much towards the behaviour of large consortia who were pace, or rather price-setters in the market. I appreciate the exemptions which continue on the smaller sections of the retail trade, but I must say that we are worried about the effect of these Orders on the middle range of the trade who have had enough changes, enough extra tasks to cope with during the last few years. Rather than complicated legal directives, would it not be better to reduce these in favour of detailed guidance to the Price Commission, with able men and high morale, and let them advise this sector, who are just as anxious to prevent prices going

1159
through the roof as the right honourable lady, or indeed the noble and learned Lord.
A more particular criticism of these Orders is that in an age of rapidly fluctuating money values, whether in connection with imported raw materials, or higher rate bills, or changes in direct or indirect taxation by Central Government, it is absolutely vital that the Government monitor most carefully the overall levels of profitability in the private sectors in this country. I hope that the Chancellor was not talking about profits the other day simply because he was talking to the C.B.I., rather in the way of mentioning the Navy when one is in Gravesend. Our Government made mistakes on this score of the levels of profitability, and let not the present Government compound them. Both sides of this House, I believe, wish for far greater investment and higher levels of employment. There are no short cuts, and a profitable private sector is the only way.
I have a question for the noble and learned Lord, but in view of the fact that we still have much business ahead of us it would be more than acceptable from my point of view if the noble and learned Lord prefers to write to me. The question is this: where allowable price increases are concerned, how can the Price Commission decide what is or is not a raw material without reference to the courts? Is the Price Commission able to go to the courts on a point of definition? Is it right that points of definition of this kind should be left to the Price Commission? We are surely in an area of present complexity and much possible future confusion here.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. A little earlier he said that the previous Government had made a number of mistakes in this matter. Would it be possible for him to clarify what mistakes he has in mind that the previous Government made, or is that a matter on which he would like to have notice?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, there are so few mistakes in this matter made by the previous Government that it is rather difficult for me to remember them.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned that the previous Government made a number of mistakes in this matter. I should have thought that he would like to clarify that issue.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I think that what I said was perfectly clear. If I may refer back to the earlier part of my speech, I said that there had been a great amount of interference from Central Government in the retail trade, which we accepted was a consequence of a prices policy, and we still accept that. All I was asking was that the present Government should not compound this necessary offence by adding to it. These Orders demonstrate that the present Government have held on to price restraint, and in general terms, as I have just said to the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench, we give the present Government credit for this. We urge them not to abandon pay restraint also, however they choose to contrive it. Good fortune to the Government if their nomenclature, or their compacts, or the personalities of individual members of the Government, succeed in holding a balance between the pay and prices sector of the counterinflationary battlefield.
We do not oppose these Orders, and we accept a considerable measure of responsibility for the climate of policy which makes their operation necessary. But we fear that the Government are ignoring other signs in the sky. It still beats me how one can carry out Orders as intricate and interventionist as these are on the prices front while relying on the airiest rhetoric on the pay front. May I finally suggest to the Government that if rough weather is in front of one, a U-turn may not always be the worst way to avoid it, until at least one finds a safe passage to the same desirable destination.
5.19 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for having indicated that there was no intention of opposing these Orders and, if I may say so, I am even more grateful to him for having indicated that he will be content with a written communication in respect of the questions that he has put to me. The dark forest of Statutory Instruments in this field is one that I occasionally had the courage to

1161
penetrate in another dispensation.. In so far as these matters of difficulty can already be regulated without the necessity of court procedures, clearly that would be a most satisfactory outcome. But I will certainly investigate to see whether the procedures are adequate to cover the point that the noble Earl made. The explanation of the difficulty about the risk of retrospection is one that I have looked at myself. I am satisfied that the explanation given by the Secretary of State clears up the risk of an unacceptable element of retrospectivity in the orders, and I am also satisfied that they do not infringe the well-established requirements of Parliament in that regard. In view of the further business that is to follow, I do not propose to detain the House any longer. Accordingly, I shall move to another place formally to put the Orders.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COUNTER-INFLATION (PRICE AND PAY CODE) (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2) ORDER 1974
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Counter-Inflation (Price and Pay Code) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 1974, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I hope that I shall handle these perambulatory procedures more effectively on another occasion.

CONTROL OF POLLUTION BILL [H.L.]
5.23 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: 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 Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): I have to call the Committee's attention to the fact that if Amendment No. 44 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 45.
LORD SANDFORD: I wonder whether I may intervene before my noble friend speaks to the Amendment, because my recollection is that we have yet to agree that Clauses 37 to 40 stand part of the Bill, and I was proposing to say something on Clause 37.
LORD SHEPHERD: I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is quite right. He rose to speak on Clause 37 on Tuesday when I intervened because of the hour, and it was agreed that we should continue our consideration of the Clause. So if the Deputy Chairman of Committees agrees, I think that we should now take Clause 37 and make certain that it and Clauses 38 and 39 get into the Bill.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I am very much obliged. I had not been notified.
Clause 37 [Control of discharges into sewers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 37 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: As the two Administrations are co-authors of the Bill, we both have an interest in seeing that all the clauses we want are in the Bill. I had risen to speak on Clause 37, because I was concerned about what consultations had taken place on the clause as it was first amended and as it is now amended. I am grateful to the noble Lord the Privy Seal for having written to me, to the noble Baroness, Lady White, and to my noble friend Lord Courtown, from whom I understand that there were indeed very full consultations originally, and that there have been no further consultations about the changes made in the Bill as originally presented and in the Bill which is now before us. I hasten to say that I have also since ascertained that the clause as it is now presented is considered to be reasonable, and therefore I do not want to pursue the matter

1163
any further except to thank the noble Lord for writing so fully to me.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clauses 38 and 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 [Operations by water authorities to remedy or forestall pollution of water]:
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I have to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that if Amendment No. 44 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 45.
5.27 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 57, line 17, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Earl said: I beg to move Amendment No. 44 and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 46, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 52, which are all concerned with the same point. It is right that a water authority should have the power to revoke or amend consent if a real need arises. I do not think there is any doubt about that, and this position is allowed for in Clauses 31 and 32. Anyone who believes that his interests have been damaged can begin an injunction. Clause 40 was brought in by the last Government when they were seeking to remove the right to bring in an injunction, and the subsections that I am talking about do not therefore have the same importance as in the previous Bill as it was presented to this House.
I also suggest that they are uncertain in their effects. They direct an authority to exercise power to revoke or vary a consent where it appears that pollution has caused any injury to flora or fauna. In general, I am in favour of flora and fauna being preserved, but surely this is going too far. Even if the damage is to a few daisies, the obligation is there. The ecology of an area tends to change continually, and it is often difficult to be certain about what causes what. If the effect of pollution is significant, then the water authority can take action without the need for this clause.
I know that the Report of the Department of the Environment, which was commended to us on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on the
1164
monitoring of the environment made the point in paragraph 145, that:
"It is national policy to improve the condition of our lakes and rivers, … but equally the condition acceptable in a particular water course must bear some relation to the uses to which it is to be put."
It went on to say:
"It may be a misuse of resources to clean all water courses to the point at which they are as unpolluted as a trout stream in Hampshire or the Scottish hills."
My information is that industry is worried by the uncertainty produced by this clause. A person setting up a works has rightly to go through detailed procedures to obtain planning permission and consent to discharge. The fact that damage to any flora or fauna, however unimportant, will lead to the revocation of consent seems to me to be going too far. If the Government cannot accept my Amendments, I hope to hear that by regulation they can ensure that industry is not held up by unimportant claims that flora and fauna have been damaged. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: This is an important set of Amendments, and I am grateful to the noble Earl for the way in which he has introduced them. Clause 40 makes two main substantive provisions. Subsections (1) to (3) impose a duty on a water authority to make good damage caused to flora and fauna of a stream by a discharge in accordance with a consent. The Amendments seek to remove this duty. All that would remain would be the power under subsection (4) for the water authority to carry out such operations as it considered appropriate to prevent or cure pollution caused otherwise than by the discharge in accordance with the consent.
The noble Earl referred to the clause as it was previously and to the changes that were made. The Government think that the clause should be retained with its full scope. New discharges—and the clause deals ill subsections (1) to (3) only with discharges made in accordance with consents given after the clause comes into force—ought not to be allowed to continue if they cause pollution injurious to the natural life of a stream. Where damage has been caused, it ought to be mitigated until the discharge can be improved as necessary, and when the discharge has been improved or stopped the

1165
damage ought to be made good. These, in brief, are the requirements of subsection (1) which would be left out by the first of the noble Earl's seven Amendments. I do not think that is something which the noble Earl himself would wish to happen.
Subsection (2) deals with perhaps the rarer case where, after a settling-down period, the discharge causes no more difficulty. The water authority are not therefore obliged to revoke or vary the consent but they are still called upon to do what is appropriate to mitigate the damage during the settling-down period, and to put it right afterwards. The second Amendment would omit this important subsection.
Subsection (3), which the third Amendment seeks to omit, provides that where in order to prevent continuing damage a water authority revokes or varies a consent within the period for which it is intended to run—a minimum of two years—they are not to be obliged to compensate the discharger for this premature action. The Government also think that this is right. Indeed, if I may say so, it would be nonsense to pay compensation when at the same time the discharger is to be required to meet the cost of damage which he himself has caused. The subsection also makes it clear that the power of the Secretary of State under Clause 31(2) to direct the water authority to vary or revoke the consent is not restricted. The fourth Amendment would consequentially delete from subsection (4) a reference to the water authority's duty under subsection (1); while the fifth Amendment would delete in subsection (5) references to subsections (1) and (2).
The noble Earl asked for an assurance that no unnecessary restrictions would be placed upon industry. I should have thought he would agree that many of the new provisions in the Bill, particularly those relating to the powers of the Secretary of State, are an indication that these very powerful duties and heavy obligations that are being placed do have a degree of appeal to the Secretary of State. I think that at the end of the day the noble Earl himself admitted that we need to protect these areas, and I think the Amendments he has moved would seriously weaken the Bill. However, with the new information that is clearly available as a consequence of the
1166
river pollution surveys which were started in 1970, and the fact that water authorition will be conscious, when they are giving consents after the provision comes into force, of the need for a precise record of the state of a river and its flora and fauna, I would say that industry, which I know the noble Earl has in mind, may be reassured that they are not being placed in a difficult situation. I hope that the noble Earl will accept my assurance that the Secretary of State is deeply conscious of the problems of industry. On the other hand, we need to see that the principles of the Bill, with which I believe most people would agree, are carried out.
LORD SANDFORD: I find myself torn between sympathy for my noble friend in the uncertainty which is left in the minds of industry by this clause as it stands (and as it was introduced into the Bill by my noble friend Lord Aberdare), and agreeing with the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal that the Bill needs to have this kind of strength if it is to be effective.
Drawing on my own experience of dealing with a number of planning cases when I was in the Department of the Environment, I wonder whether I might put this point to the noble Lord opposite and ask him whether he would care to reflect on it and perhaps, although not wishing to comment on it now, comment on it later. It seems to me that if there are to be the provisions that appear in Clause 40, 31 and 32, it is important that any fresh new consents made under this Act should, so far as humanly possible, contain some details as to the kind of local and particular circumstances in which it is envisaged that it might be necessary to operate Clause 40 and invoke Clauses 31 and 32 and to set out in those details, so far as possible, what agreement as to the mechanism of measurement and monitoring there will be, and also what kind of discussion and arbitration will be invoked before a decision is taken to operate Clauses 40, 31 and 32.
I recall that we were able to agree in the course of applying a number of planning conditions, that if such and such a thing happened and it exceeded certain limits and it was agreed by some professional body or outside laboratory that some limit had been reached, then certain conditions

1167
would begin to bite. If the noble Lord could assure us that the clause will, as far as possible, go into that kind of detail it will resolve some of the present uncertainty.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will readily respond to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. Clearly we want to have as much certainty as possible in this rather uncertain area, and what I would seek to do on Third Reading is to see whether we can include in one of the speeches information which will perhaps develop and explain our thoughts on this matter.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I yield to no one in my general support for the principles of this Bill. What worried me about this clause was the fact that some "crank", in examining the contents of a stream or its flora or fauna, might find some difference and then claim that the difference was caused by some new discharge and some new consent, so that the water authority might then go through the whole business of revoking the consent on what might be almost semi-frivolous grounds.
LORD SHEPHERD: May I say to the noble Earl that there is always a risk of "cranks" in any area, but I do not think this is one of the areas where a water authority, recognising its responsibilities at the end of the day and its relationship to the Secretary of State, would lightly respond to the pressures of a "crank"—anyhow, I hope not: I do not think it would.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: In view of what the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has said, especially in relation to making this clear at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 45:
Page 58, line 2, leave out ("immediately").
The noble Lord said: In view of my noble friend's speech in moving his Amendments and the reply of the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal I shall not move my Amendment.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Clause 41 [Duty of water authorities to deal with waste from vessels etc.]:
5.43 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 60, line 6, leave out second ("the") and insert ("emptying and").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is about the emptying and washing of prescribed appliances on vessels. The prescribed appliances for which washing facilities are provided come under Clause 41(1)(b). These prescribed appliances have first to be emptied before they are washed. They cannot be emptied into the water closet provided under subsection (2) because they are too heavy and because they cannot be emptied without being spilt and making the toilet offensive for personal use. That rules out Clause 41(2). It is not included in subsection (1)(a) because it is not for the water authority to arrange for the collection of the bucket or receptacle from the vessel in its area. It is not for them to arrange for the collection or the disposal of the waste. The boat user does this himself. The bucket, or whatever it may be called, can only be satisfactorily emptied in a purpose-built receptacle with a drain and where the vessel—that is, the vessel being emptied—can be refilled with water and rinsed out at the same time. For that reason, I hope the Minister will agree that the facilities in paragraph (b) should be—if only for clarity—for emptying as well as for washing the prescribed appliances. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Government have sympathy with this Amendment and if I may express a personal view, too, since for a number of years I had the great pleasure of having my own boat on the Norfolk Broads, I know what are the more recent difficulties as a consequence of the by-laws. But the advice I have received is that the phrase, "arrange for the collection and disposal of waste from vessels" in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) already includes both going out and collecting and providing a place where waste may be pumped out from boats or carried by the boat owner to be emptied. The advice I have received, therefore, is that the noble Lord's Amendment is unnecessary. As drafted, it would also have the unfortunate effect, because it distinguishes arrangements for collection

1169
from arrangements for emptying, of giving the authority a duty to arrange for both types of facility which the noble Lord may agree with me seems perhaps to be asking too much. Usually it should be one or the other.
It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, on my assurance that collection includes providing facilities for reception of waste, will accept that the clause is all right as it stands. I must tell him that we cannot make our intention clear by saying in paragraph (a),"arrange for the collection or reception of waste", because I am advised that the result might be to throw doubt on the meaning of the word, "collection" in other contexts in the Bill. Here we see how we have done our very best to meet this point. If he thinks it might improve matters, it might be possible to say, "reception" instead of "collection", but I must say that on the advice I have received and in view of my particular interest in this subject, frankly, I think that the phrasing in the Bill at present is the best. But in sympathy, understanding and intention there is nothing between us.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I have studied this and I know that he has studied it. I think the drafting is terrible and I do not agree with him at all. But we shall live to fight another day. I will study what he has said most carefully and I am sure that my friends in another place will take it up again if they think there is something in what I have said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Power of water authorities to exclude unregistered vessels from rivers etc.]:
5.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 60, line 23, leave out from ("charges") to ("and") in line 24 and insert ("reflective of the cost of registration of vessels in pursuance of the byelaws and of the enforcement thereof;").
The noble Viscount said: What I want mainly to do by this Amendment is to sort out the confusion between registration and licensing. Registration means listing a boat and sticking a name or
1170
number on it so that it can be identified, and that is very necessary for all sorts of control purposes. Licensing is quite different. That is a matter of getting revenue from the boat for the purpose of paying for the various facilities which have been provided. In a sane world they can both be combined very nicely under one head, as they are on the roads. All the roads belong to one authority and it is therefore possible to have one licensing system and to collect the revenue at the same time with no trouble.
The waterways have not been organised in the same manner. They are divided among a great many owners, and the fact of the matter is that if you combine registration and licensing you produce positions where a boat owner having to pass from one area to another—in some cases passing through several different areas—finds himself having not only to register separately with them, but to pay separate sums to each. With a multiplication of ownership this can become very serious. What is more, we are moving into a period of boats which move about on trailers on the roads and which take to several different waterways in the course of a summer's cruising. This can become outrageously expensive if the two are combined.
It is undoubtedly necessary to register, but it would be far more sensible if the registration were paid for simply by a registration fee which reflected the cost of it, and if any sum collected by licensing were a different matter. In fact, in many cases the money will go to a different person. For this reason, I should like to see registration a matter of listing the boat for which a simple fee would be paid, with licensing being entirely separate. If there were a further charge that would be made under the head of licensing. I have no intention of pressing this Amendment, but I should like my noble friend to say what he thinks about the matter. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: I wish all noble Lords were like my noble friend and would declare that they had no intention of pressing an Amendment before they have heard the reply! The chief aim of giving authorities power to require registration is to enable them to enforce the provisions of Clause 27 which controls the keeping or use of vessels

1171
equipped with sanitary facilities. The charge for registration would cover the cost of the registration scheme and its enforcement, but it is envisaged that the charge would also cover the cost of providing facilities for collecting waste and alternative facilties by way of water closets and so forth, arrangements for which are provided in Clause 41. Clause 42 goes on to provide that the facilities mentioned in Clause 41 should be free to those who have paid for them through the registration fee.
I must say I find this a logical arrangement. Someone has to pay for the provision of these facilities: they can never be absolutely "free". It seems reasonable that those who use them should pay. It is also a point to be borne in mind that if people have paid for the facilities through their registration fee (rather than, for instance, by being required to pay each time they use them) they may be encouraged to use them and not be tempted to dispose of their waste illegally in the water. We have made it clear that the charge should be reasonable. For that reason, and having already received my noble friend's assurance that he does not intend to press the Amendment, I hope he will withdraw it.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I thank my noble friend for that explanation, it is exactly what I expected. It makes my next Amendment rather more important because if a boat owner who uses his boat in several different areas not only has to pay one registration fee, but has to reregister and then re-register again, he will pay quite a sum of money by the time he has visited several different waterways; whereas if he registered once, and paid only one charge, he would obviously pay very much less. I must thank my noble friend for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 60, line 28, at end insert—
("(3) Registration of a vessel by any water authority in accordance with byelaws made by that authority under subsection (1) of this section, or (pursuant to any other enactment) by any other body which may be prescribed, shall be deemed to constitute registration also of that vessel by any (or, as the case may be,
1172
by any other) water authority in accordance with any such byelaws which are so made by that authority.")
The noble Viscount said: This is the matter of multiple registration. It is an absolute curse on the waterways; to some extent it is pressed on us by the fact that the waterways are in so many different ownerships. It would be much better if a boat was registered only once. If you have a number of different authorities keeping different registers you get into a state of confusion. You can have boats with several different numbers on them and, indeed, boats with variable names. A waterway authority like the British Waterways Board insists on a boat having a single name which is not carried by any other boat. If each authority keeps a register one may find that a boat which is called "Nellie Dean" on one waterway, is called "Nellie Dean III" on another. The main content of the name may have to be varied in order to get the boat into the list of different waterways. I have seen names considerably altered in this manner. One can imagine the boat owner as he goes from one authority to another, changing the name of his boat. That really happens. If we are to have all these authorities making up registers, it will be most confusing.
If only this could be dealt with in the same way as on the roads, where at least one's car number does not vary. One's car number is the same all over the world; it is not even varied by markedly individualistic countries like Albania; it does not have to be translated into Arabic for the minions of Colonel Ghadafi, or anything like that. We want some sense in our waterway registration. If registration is for the purpose of identifying a boat, then it is much easier to identify it if the boat's name and number is a constant and not a variable.
There is an additional point which came up on the last Amendment. If the boat has to re-register every time it goes from one authority's water into another—and this is a frequent occurrence because a number of waterways cross and re-cross water authority boundaries—then some boat owners will have to pay heavily, not merely for the registration, but also for the licensing charges which we have heard are applied, quite rightly, to carry the cost of the installations. I hope that my noble friend will accept this

1173
Amendment. This is a tangle which has been with us for a great many years, and I have fought against it all my life. I had hoped that when nationalisation came we would cut away much of it, and we did cut away quite an amount. Here is a chance to make another cut in this tangle of weeds. If only my noble friend will accept this Amendment we may be on the way to having a sane system of boat registration. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am entirely in agreement with my nobe friend, as I was with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, as a consequence of my own special interest in the matter. The Government, and, particularly, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, would wish to see the free movement of boats from one waterway to another. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made clear when this point was raised in Committee on the previous Bill, the Bill as drafted at present makes all this possible and one day a single system of registration may exist. Clause 42 specifically provides that in their by-laws water authorities may prohibit vessels unless they are registered "or are exempted from registration". The thought here is precisely that one water authority's by-laws could exempt from registration with that authority any vessels already registered with another authority.
The spirit is certainly with the Government; this is something I suspect will take time to evolve. I can only say to my noble friend that if he were to persist with his Amendment, unlike the previous one, he would put boat owners in a much more restrictive situation than now exists. Therefore, with that expression of sympathy and with the hope that we will one day see a free movement of boats with a minimum of processing and registration, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: I think my noble friend for this ray of hope which was a slightly larger ray than I expected; I was sure that this Amendment was too complicated. But with this a ray of hope, and the fact that it is clear that the Bill is meant in the end to unify registration, I will go away satisfied and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 42 agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: There is now a Manuscript Amendment, No. 55A. I do not know whether any noble Lord lacks a copy of it, but it is rather long. Does the Committee wish me to read it in full?
LORD SHEPHERD: I think my noble friend Baroness White has unfortunately been delayed. Therefore, I do not think she is in a position to move it.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I do not know whether the noble Lord was about to accept the Amendment, in which case I would offer my good offices.
LORD SHEPHERD: I will be quite frank. The Government are willing to accept this Amendment, but when I saw it earlier I expressed the view that it was a very comprehensive Amendment—it is one of consolidation—and I wondered whether it was one that should be moved by the manuscript procedure. But I am entirely in your Lordships' hands. I know the feeling about consolidation; and if a noble Lord or a noble Baroness was prepared to speak on behalf of my noble friend in whose name the Amendment is down, I can give the Committee an assurance that the Government will accept it.
VISCOUNT AMORY: I think I shall withdraw my offer. I had inadequately mastered the Amendment in question.
Clause 43 [Investigation of water pollution problems arising from closures of mines]:
On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD SANDFORD: Clause 43 provides for studies on how to deal with pollution from abandoned mines, and it envisages that following the studies steps appropriate to deal with the matter might be taken. There are so many points in the Bill where the waste material from mines and quarries is excluded, that I wonder whether we can have the assurance of the noble Lord that those exclusions will not stand in the way of appropriate action being taken to deal with abandoned mines when the studies have indicated what should be done.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am very happy to give the noble Lord that assurance. This is an area of very great complexity,

1175
but I think I can give the noble Lord the assurance for which he has asked.
Clause 43 agreed to.
Clause 44 [Notice to abstain front certain agricultural practices]:
6.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 61, line 6, leave out ("requesting") and insert ("directing").
The noble Earl said: I wonder whether I might move this Amendment. I have not been asked by the noble Baroness, Lady White, to do so but I intended to support it. Is that in order?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: As your Lordships see, the Amendment is to leave out the word "requesting" and to insert "directing". If your Lordships will look at the subsection of the clause, you will see that in one sentence there are two uses of the word "request"—one is "request" and the other is "requesting". It says:
"the authority may … request the Secretary of State to serve on the occupier of the place a notice requesting the occupier to prevent acts or omissions of that kind at the place".
The first "request" refers to the authority; but, as I understand it, the second "request" is a direction. It seems to me that if it is a direction, this clause would be very much clearer to the lay person if the word "directing" was used instead of "requesting". Clearly, the words, "request the Secretary of State" do not represent a direction in any way. Therefore, if I am right in my interpretation of this clause, the word "request" is used in two different senses in the same sentence. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: With respect, I think the noble Earl has misunderstood the purpose of Clause 44. It has been included in the Bill, together with Clause 25(2)(c), solely to provide an early warning system for farmers. Farmers have been singled out in this way because agriculture is peculiar in requiring substances to be released into the environment, not as waste but as an intrinsic part of production. In some concentrations some of these substances—for instance, fertilisers and pesticides—are polluting
1176
or even dangerous in water. Thus a farmer who is following good agricultural practice without any inkling that the materials he is using are getting into underground water will be unknowingly committing an offence. Under the Bill, Clause 25(2)(c) will provide him with a defence until a notice under Clause 44 has become effective.
The notice requests the farmer to prevent a particular act because the object is to place him, as a result, in exactly the same position as any other person who the water authority believes to be polluting water—liable to prosecution for the offence in the courts. If the notice directed him to prevent the act, it would prejudge his guilt and would, presumably, have to be supplemented by provisions for enforcing the direction and imposing penalties for failure to comply with it. The notice is intended literally as a request, thus accomplishing its purpose as a warning device and leaving the farmer to decide whether he will play for safety and accede to the request or disregard it and face prosecution if he is shown to pollute water. As I said, the first request is for the purpose of giving a warning to the farmer to alert him to a possible pollution. I think this is the best way to proceed in this matter.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: In view of the noble Lord's remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 44 agreed to.
Clause 45 [Charges in respect of certain discharges in England and Wales]:
On Question, Whether Clause 45 shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: This clause and Clause 46 allow the Secretary of State to issue by order regulations to allow water authorities to make charges for the discharge of unpolluted water into water-courses, or even into the sea within the three-mile limit, and I understand that industry is considerably worried about the possible effects. The principle to which we are working, and which has been repeated several times during this Committee stage, is that the polluter pays for the adequate abatement of his pollution, whether he does it himself or gets a contractor to do it, or whether the local

1177
authority does it on his behalf, and that seems to me absolutely right.
This clause, however, enables the Secretary of State by order to go well beyond that. It enables him to authorise charges when the effluents discharged into a water-course or the sea have been so adequately treated as to abate the pollution, if pollution there has been at all. So as I see it, this clause enables the Secretary of State to issue regulations which go far beyond anything else in this Bill. It also allows, or could allow, a pollution tax to be levied according to the degree of pollution in the discharge, without taking on any responsibility to remove that pollution. This also means a change of principle, which should not be subject to an order procedure.
Apart from the question of principle, this clause allows another undesirable uncertainty for industry in setting up a factory in a particular area. Many costs have to be taken into account, including the abatement of any effluent to the standard required for a particular location. It may be argued that this clause is necessary to provide flexibility, but I suggest that much consultation is necessary before any such procedure is made possible.
LORD SHEPHERD: First of all, I can assure the noble Earl that, like the previous Administration, it is not the Government's intention to use this clause to raise taxation for the benefit of the national coffers, nor to herald a system of open-ended licences to pollute by those who may have the money to do it. There are a number of considerations which make my right honourable friend the Secretary of State prefer to retain this power, although as yet he has neither decided that he should use it nor that it is practical to use it. The starting point is that while rivers and estuaries, and even more the seas, have a considerable capacity for diluting and degrading polluting matters of various kinds, there are limits to the amounts which they can receive without becoming themselves unacceptably polluted. It is right as, I think, the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution recognised in their Third Report, that we should use this capacity for the valuable natural and national resources—that it is in the
1178
last resort liquid waste and has to go somewhere.
The question, then, is how we should use it. Obviously it ought to be used in the way which brings the maximum advantage to the community as a whole, and one way is that its use should involve the minimum expenditure to achieve the desired standard of a particular water. I do not think that we need to be economists to realise that the simple regulation of the quality of each discharge will not necessarily, or even probably, secure that standard. Perhaps it costs one firm twice as much to reduce the oxygen demand of its effluent as another which discharges in the same stretch of water, but I surmise that it would be considered unfair if, because of that, the first firm was allowed to discharge effluent with twice the demand for oxygen per unit of volume. But if a charge could be fixed in such a way that the firm with the easier task was let off so long as its effluent consistently reached the specified high standard, while the firm with the greater problem was allowed to take up for itself more of the purifying capacity of the river on paying the charge, we might achieve the same end without any feeling of unfair discrimination. That, as I understand it, is one of the arguments for keeping this enabling power, and I stress that it is an enabling power: it may make it possible to achieve equitably the optimum use of natural resources.
The noble Earl asked whether there would be full consultation before this particular clause was implemented. My Lords, I can unhesitatingly give the noble Earl that assurance. The Secretary of State has not yet made up his mind whether he would use this particular power or, in fact, whether it is practicable to use it, but he wishes to have the flexibility which is contained in the Bill. If it could be used for the national advantage, then he would have the opportunity to use it. I can give the noble Earl the fullest possible assurance that the fullest possible consultation with all those directly concerned will be undertaken before this particular clause is implemented.
BARONESS WHITE: I must apologise to the House for not being in my place earlier, but I had a public engagement

1179
connected with the environment which I simply could not escape. I have, therefore, been able to listen only to the concluding words of my noble friend. I was very glad to hear his assurance that there would be the fullest consultation before this particular clause was activated, because my noble friend will be aware that some of us expressed considerable doubts when a similar clause was included in an earlier Bill. I heard him reading certain phrases which seemed to me to echo at least phrases used by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in a letter which she sent to my noble friend Lord Kennet on this very subject; they carried no conviction with me then, and I doubt whether they carry very much more conviction when they come from the mouth of my noble friend.
This clause is a difficult one for many of us. I think I am correct in saying that it can be activated in this Bill as it was in the last only by an Affirmative Resolution, but most of us are surely old enough Parliamentary hands to recognise that even an Affirmative Resolution, as opposed to a Negative one, still leaves one with no opportunity to amend such a Resolution. One has to accept it or reject it in toto. I do not think that this is at all a simple matter. As we said in our earlier consideration of the former Bill, it raises considerations of principle as to whether one ought to permit pollution on payment. Since our earlier deliberations, another factor has been strengthened in my mind—a suspicion about this clause—and that is the financial position of the new water authorities.
My noble friend may be aware that in Wales, at any rate, we have had an absolute furore about the charges now being levied on domestic water users by the new water authorities. They are astronomic. There have been debates in another place on this and newspaper articles, television and radio programmes and so forth. If a situation should arise where the new water authorities, who have to pay their way, should feel tempted to use charges in circumstances where obviously the pollution is not gross pollution—I would not believe for one moment that any of them would wish to do that—or rather where there was moderate pollution and they said: "This is a way of getting some cash
1180
into our coffers", they could, it seems to me, be under some temptation to press the Government for powers to levy charges on industrialists discharging into waterways, with a fairly keen eye on not just the flow of the river but on their own cash flow. I think that this is by no means beyond possibility.
Certainly so far as the Welsh National Water Development Authority is concerned it is under considerable public and political pressure at the present time over the charges which it is levying to domestic and, I suppose, to industrial users; but most of the pressure has come from the domestic users. This is an element in the situation about which some of us are suspicious. Not having been here early enough to hear the full argument put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, it would be improper for me to speak further, but I would not wish this clause to be passed without drawing attention at least to some of the problems which some of us foresee.
LORD SHEPHERD: I have listened to my noble friend. I can understand why she is suspicious of the other side, but why she should be suspicious of me I do not know. On the other hand, it may be that I cannot speak with the same charm as the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I think that if the noble Baroness will study what I have said, she will see that the Secretary of State's Department are in no way convinced that this clause is necessary. I do not know whether they will be able to use it or whether, in fact, they would wish to use it. If, however, you do not insert an enabling clause of this kind now and if in the next two or three years you are desirous of having such a provision, then you will have to wait, how long—five, six, seven years? We all know the problems of Parliamentary time. If I may say so, I am now experiencing those problems. Therefore, I give your Lordships my assurance.
I hope that the Committee will agree that this provision ought to be retained in the Bill, on the understanding that the fullest possible consultations will take place. Certainly, on the fears, the suspicions of my noble friend, I do not think she will find them justified.
BARONESS WHITE: Had I thought that my noble friend was going to remain

1181
for ever in the office which he now holds, I should have had no apprehensions at all, but changes do occur from time to time.
LORD SHEPHERD: I can only ask my noble friend to ensure that I continue where I am.
LORD SANDFORD: I had understood that both Parties here are doing something which really has to be done if effect is to be given to the views of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution.
BARONESS WHITE: With respect, surely the Minority View of the Royal Commission—
LORD SANDFORD: The whole Commission came to the view and recommended that the question of charging should be studied. We are studying the question of abandoned mines in this Bill, too. There is no point in undertaking studies if at the same time power is not taken to give effect to them when they are concluded.
LORD MERRIVALE: Before the Committee decides on this matter, I spoke against Clause 45 on Second Reading and referred to some of the passages contained in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The recommendations of the whole Commission, which appear on page 15, were
"The majority of us are unable at present to go this far"—
that is, the introduction of a charging system—
"but we do recommend that the Government forthwith examine the case for adopting a charging system."
Can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say whether the previous Administration acted in any way on this recommendation? If they did not, is there any purpose in having this clause, if one does not intend to adopt the recommendation that I have quoted?
Also, will the noble Lord agree that to carry out these investigations would entail a great amount of work and expenditure. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the Minority Report said, at page 83:
"The precise technical details, both concerning the desirable level of charges and also the machinery for the collection, are matters that will require a great deal of work at the local
1182
as well as at the national level, involving administrative, technical and scientific considerations on the one hand, and economic analysis on the other."
Therefore, in the present economic situation of this country it does not look as though this matter could be tackled at all for quite a number of years, and would it not be better to have a special clause inserted in a much later Bill?
LORD SHEPHERD: I thought I had dealt with that, since one never knows when appropriate legislation is coming before Parliament. The noble Lord referred to the Majority and the Minority Reports. I think they were divided not on intention or purpose, but on how quickly matters could be made effective. I believe it was the majority who wished to see a full investigation first, while the minority wished to see the recommendation implemented earlier. We have said that we will have full consultation and will carry out a continuing review. If the Secretary of State feels that it is practical or desirable, he has to come to Parliament and, despite my noble friend's views, an Order has to be passed by both Houses of Parliament.
I should have thought that there was enough protection here. If one does not include this sort of enabling clause at this stage, one can never be sure when an opportunity will arise to deal with a particular matter. I have given all the assurances that an honest man can possibly give, and therefore I hope that the Committee will now agree that this clause should be inserted into the Bill.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I am glad to hear the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal say that there will be full consultation. I should also like to say that I strongly agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady White, said. I would add that the danger that some parts of industry fear is that, in view of the difficult financial situation of some of these water authorities, they may be tempted—if the Secretary of State allows—to make charges for discharges into water courses which have already been restored to an accepted level of pollution, and into the sea. So, in effect, they would be making charges for discharging adequately pure water to water courses and into the sea.
Clause 45 agreed to.
Clauses 46 to 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Periodical inspections by local authorities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS YOUNG: I have already given notice of my intention to raise the whole question of staff, at some suitable opportunity. I indicated on the Second Reading of this Bill that I was concerned about this matter, and I think a similar concern was expressed by my noble friend Lord Amory and by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. We all realise that this is an enabling Bill and, to a large extent, its success or failure will depend on whether or not local authorities can recruit and keep well-qualified staff.
The job of waste disposal is a new responsibility for county councils, and the whole policy in Part I implies that we must find new ways of dealing with the problems. In addition to the preparation of a waste disposal plan, the technical expertise that will be needed in the disposal of waste is something that is quite new to most authorities. If the waste disposal authorities take seriously—as we hope they will—their new duties to consider reclamation and recycling, this, too, will require experts.
I have raised this matter on Part III, because the concept of noise abatement zones is quite new and will require great expertise in measuring noise levels, and at present not more than a handful of local authorities have any suitably qualified staff to do this. Also, of course, although I have not touched upon it, we expect expertise from the new regional water authorities, and—under Part IV of the Bill—on clean air. For example, we know that under Part IV local authorities will have power to investigate discharges into the atmosphere, and to undertake research; except where the discharges are subject to the Alkali Act.
Having said that, it seems to me that for this Bill to be effective timing and money are all-important. I should therefore be glad if the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can answer some questions. Can he tell the Committee when he thinks the Bill will be brought into effect? At one stage it was contemplated that it would not be brought in until 1975. In the meantime, local authorities will need to make preparations and to recruit staff.
1184
I think some idea of the time scale might be helpful. Then, does the noble Lord feel that the numbers of staff given in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum are realistic? It is suggested that local authorities will require between 500 and 800 additional staff. In round figures, if one assumes that there are about 400 districts in England and Wales, 45 counties and 10 regional water authorities, such numbers indicate at their lowest about one member of staff for each authority and at their highest about two, and it is suggested that this number would be spread over a number of years. I cannot believe that this is really the kind of figure that in fact local authorities will need to recruit if they are to fulfil the object of this Bill.
Then I wonder whether the noble Lord can say anything about training. There may well be (and no doubt are) a number of people in local government who need to be, and could be trained. I should like to know whether or not the local government training board is looking into proper training and retraining schemes, and whether any of the universities or polytechnics are considering special courses in these relevant subjects? Finally, can he say anything about the Government's thinking (if they have managed to pursue this matter further, and I appreciate that in the time scale they may not have been able to do so) about a suitable career structure? Obviously, for a number of the professional people they will already be covered by the professional qualifications of public health inspectors; but there will be others. It has always seemed to me that in the future a profession in the control of environmental pollution is one that could well attract a number of young people who are interested in this matter. I think therefore that it is important that we should be thinking in terms of a good career structure in order to attract the best people.
6.31 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am minded to invite the noble Baroness to come round and sit on this Bench and answer the questions that she has put to me. These are matters and considerations which clearly the previous Administration must have had in mind when they launched this piece of legislation. I would draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the

1185
Explanatory Memorandum, which refers to some 500 to 800 additional staff being needed by the local authorities, and 25 additional Central Government staff. Like the noble Baroness, I question that figure. Taken over the country as a whole, and considering the responsibilities that are now being placed on various local authorities, one really wonders whether this is a realistic figure. On the other hand there are, are there not, adjustments being made within the local authority structure which may provide some new reserves for these duties? This is something that I should like to deal with on Third Reading, because I think it is a very important point and something that the House as a whole ought to consider.
In regard to a career, I have no doubt at all that this is one of the most vital parts not only of this project but also of the whole field of local authority, or for that matter of any employment. If one is going to get the right expertise, particularly in that sensitive area to which the noble Baroness referred, of noise, clearly one has got to have men and women of the highest possible calibre and dedication. To get those people, one needs a proper career structure. In regard to training, and those other matters in regard to staff problems, we are intending to ask the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution to undertake studies. I understand this is already in process. Also, the Department of the Environment will keep in close contact with various associations and professional bodies.
This is a field worthy of a separate debate. I will seek to bring the noble Baroness's comments together and, within a short period, to develop this matter within our Third Reading debate where I think we can more appropriately deal with it. Here we are talking about the principles of a Bill. Clearly the principle is of no use at all unless one is prepared to provide the means. Unfortunately, no Government seem to inherit from another the resources and the opportunities to do all the things that they want to do. I am not saying that in any abrasive way towards the noble Lords opposite, because I have no doubt at all that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, said the same thing when he inherited the Chancellor-ship from his predecessor.
Clause 50 agreed to.
Clause 51 [Summary proceedings by occupier of premises.]:
6.35 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 66, line 15, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Baroness said: I put this Amendment down as a probing Amendment. I am aware that there is no alteration in this Bill from the former Protection of the Environment Bill. I am raising this Amendment because it has been put to me that this part of the Bill is very widely drafted and its meanings may not be clear to everyone, and particularly to organisers of things such as "pop" festivals and other events which could be noisy. I thought, therefore, it would be helpful if the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal could indicate the meaning of this Clause so that we could have it on the Record. There is no definition in the noise section of what is a noise amounting to a nuisance. Clause 51 reads:
"Where a local authority is satisfied that noise amounting to a nuisance exists, or is likely to occur or recur, in the area of the local authority …",
then it can require the abatement of a nuisance or its prohibition. It would be helpful to know what is meant by that wording, because it could imply that a local authority, if it chose to act in such a way, could stop something happening immediately and without warning.
I am aware that this is a very controversial subject: it is controversial because what one person regards as a noise, another person may regard as something of great pleasure. Furthermore, we are always balancing the rights of local government to freedom while at the same time trying to keep some kind of uniform standard throughout the country. I recognise that it is not an easy matter. If the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, cannot give me an answer to this rather detailed point today, and would like to write me about it, I should be perfectly happy to leave it there. I think it would be helpful to know whether the Government are considering issuing a code of practice to local authorities so that those who undertake to organise such things as "pop" festivals, or anything that is likely to be noisy, or perhaps anybody who is a do-it-yourself

1187
enthusiast and may decide to work into the small hours of the morning, may know whether they could quite suddenly be brought within this clause by the action of a local authority. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could let me know the answer to these questions.
LORD SHEPHERD: The powers given to local authorities in subsection (1)(a) are not, with one small exception, new powers. Local authorities have been able to require the abatement of noise since 1960, and to prohibit and restrict its recurrence since 1969. There is no evidence to show that they have not used their powers wisely. On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence, for example, in the annual reports of the Association of Public Health Inspectors, to show that powers are used effectively and with the absolute minimum recourse to the courts.
A code of practice about "pop" festivals has I understand gone out. It is not an area in which I normally participate, but I have been informed that that is so. I would expect, too, that within the general framework of this Bill there would be some form of code of practice. I gather—I think it is in a later Amendment dealing with chimes of ice-cream vans—that there is an intention that there should be some form of code of practice, but this is something we can deal with. I think the object here is to give to the local authorities the powers to be able to contain noise, and also, by later clauses, to give a greater opportunity than now exists for an individual—not a group of people as at present, but an individual—who feels that a nuisance caused by noise is so great, to proceed to the courts and obtain an order for that noise, that nuisance, to desist.
This is a useful clause. Local authorities already have quite considerable experience in this connection—some perhaps more than others. Moreover, I was surprised to find out myself that the courts to whom the appeal will be made or to whom the case can be taken also have built up some considerable experience. But this is an area in which some form of code of practice would be best adopted at least to obtain some degree of uniformity of procedure and understanding throughout the country, notwithstanding
1188
that of course in certain areas the demand for silence is bound to be greater and more practical than in others.
BARONESS WHITE: If I might introduce a frivolous note, if there is to be a code of practice for ice-cream chimes, could it ensure that Mendelssohn's "Spring Song shall not be played in the Millband ward of the City of Westminster?
LORD MOLSON: I feel that this clause is drafted in the right way because it will enable local authorities to exercise a discretion and to tighten up the present state of affairs. I was surprised to hear that local authorities had these powers going back to 1960 and 1969. I cannot think they have been used as extensively as public opinion now would wish them to be used. I am glad therefore that this clause is going to enable greater restriction on noise nuisance to be applied. I feel a little doubt about the expression of opinion both by my noble friend Lady Young and by the noble Lord the Leader of the House regarding uniformity throughout the country. It is quite inevitable and right that in some parts of the country, owing to the very nature of industry there and so on, much greater noise must be tolerated than in parts of the country where there is no industry and where the residents can reasonably expect to be protected more fully against noise. I rise only to say that I support this clause, and I hope and believe that, with the flexibility and the power that it gives to local authorities to exercise their reasonable discretion in the matter, we may find in future that noise is abated much more than has been the case in the past.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his explanation, which I shall read carefully. I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, says: that there will be variations in the country. The difficulty with the whole of this section of the Bill, with whose aims I am in entire agreement, is that noise is such a peculiarly subjective matter and opinions on it differ very much. But it is useful to have this explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52 [Summary proceedings by occupier of premises]:
6.45 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 61.
Page 68, line 15, after ("court") insert ("convicting a person of an offence under this section").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 61 and I shall also be speaking to Amendment No. 62. As the clause is drafted at present—and I am thinking particularly of subsection (6)—it empowers a magistrates' court to direct a local authority to do what it can require the defendant to do under subsection (2), without allowing the defendant the opportunity to take the necessary action himself. This would seem wrong in principle as the defendant is not at this stage guilty of an offence, although of course the court may be satisfied that he has perpetrated a noise nuisance. Secondly, if it is considered desirable for magistrates' courts to be able to direct local authorities in this way, is it not illogical then that the court should not have these directive powers where a defendant has not complied with an order made under subsection (2) and the magistrates have not used their directive powers when making that order? I trust therefore that the Minister will feel that my two Amendments to subsection (6) would enable both circumstances which I have just mentioned to be catered for more satisfactorily.
When the Lord Privy Seal, Lord Shepherd, comes to reply, I hope, with the greatest respect, that he will not say, as did my noble friend Lady Young earlier on this year as spokesman for Her Majesty's Government, that subsection (6) is in effect identical to Section 99 of the Public Health Act 1936. It should be recognised that that Act of 1936 was not drafted with noise nuisances particularly in mind. In fact, it required the Noise Abatement Act 1960, to which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred earlier on, to apply the Public Health Act 1936 provisions to noise nuisances. Furthermore, Section 99 of the 1936 Act only empowers a magistrates' court to direct a local authority to abate the nuisance. In fact, the provisions of this clause are much wider than the provisions
1190
of Section 99 of the 1936 Public Health Act, for the clause would enable a magistrates' court to direct a local authority to execute any works necessary to prevent the nuisance recurring. In conclusion, is it not surely right that, where any works are necessary on a person's premises, if he is not guilty of an offence then he should have the first opportunity of executing those works himself? I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am going to surprise the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Young, because I am going to accept the Amendment in principle. It seems to me quite reasonable to give a defendant an opportunity to undertake any necessary noise abatement himself before requiring a local authority to do the job. But further consequential drafting changes are required to give the Amendment its intended effect. The Government are prepared to consider the introduction of an Amendment which would achieve the intended purpose of this one at the next stage of the Bill. If the noble Lord will accept that and withdraw his Amendment, I will ensure that an Amendment is put down for the next stage.
LORD MERRIVALE: I must confess that I am rather taken aback, but with that assurance, and with thanks to the noble Lord and the Government, I willingly beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Control of noise on construction sites]:
6.50 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 69, line 7, leave out ("any specified plant or machinery or") and insert ("the premises in question or at any specified point on those premises or which").
The noble Lord said: Clause 53 gives local authorities power to serve notices imposing requirements on the way in which construction, demolition and similar works are to be carried out for the purpose of the minimising of noise. Subsection (3) lists particular points which the local authority might include in a notice served under subsection (2). The Amendment is designed to change the

1191
emphasis of noise emissions of machinery to the total noise emitted from the site of which machinery is only part. The clause concerned deals not so much with machinery noise as with environmental noise levels in the area round the site; for example, the amount of noise which people living in the immediate vicinity can be expected to put up with. This will also be made clear in the code of practice of the Secretary of State under Clause 64(2) which gives guidance to contractors and local authorities on the control of construction site noise. There is also an appeal under Clause 53(7) to a magistrate's court. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 69, line 16, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 64, and to speak to Amendment No. 65. Subsection (4)(c) now to be deleted was a recent Amendment inserted so as to further emphasise the point that one of the main means of controlling noise from construction sites was to reduce the noise which was otherwise experienced by local residents. The purpose of the Amendment is to put more emphasis on the fact that controls are needed only where people have to be protected from noise. In some areas there may not be anyone in need of protection, and there would be no point in imposing controls in such circumstances. The Amendment also makes clear that the local authority should be primarily concerned with those living in the area immediately adjacent to the construction site. To this end, the term "persons" has been used instead of the word "dwellings" so that educational establishments, hospitals and the like are now included as well as residential accommodation. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I beg to move Amendment No. 65.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 20, at end insert—
("(e) to the need to protect any persons in the locality in which the premises in question are situated from the effects of noise.")—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 54 agreed to.
Clause 55 [Noise in streets]:
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 65A:
Page 72, line 21, at end insert—
("; and
(d) the sound emanated does not exceed 80 d B(A) measured at one metre distance.")
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lady Young, in moving her Amendment No. 60, pointed out that there seemed to be no definition of a noise that can be a statutory nuisance. I am seeking a very small Amendment to subsection (3) which, as I read it, is directed almost entirely at controlling the noise made by itinerant icecream vans. My Amendment would ensure that the chimes, so familiar in urban areas, would be kept to a reasonable noise level. This seems to me to be a necessary limitation, but I am prepared to withdraw my Amendment if the noble Lord the Leader of the House can give an assurance that some limitation of this nose level would be included in the code of practice provided for in Clause 64. I would not ask him to include in that assurance, however, anything about Mendelssohn's "Spring Song". I beg to move.
VISCOUNT AMORY: It would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, would give us a demonstration, with the approval of the Committee, of a noise that does not exceed 80 d B(A). If he is willing, for my part I am willing to move towards him until I am exactly one metre away.
LORD CRAIGTON: I can give the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, some more information. This noise is the loudest acceptable noise, as accepted and advised to me by no less an authority than the Noise Abatement Society, and I learn from perhaps even higher authority that, it is a little louder than would in fact be allowed by whoever was preparing the regulations in the code of practice. It is quite a loud noise. I hope the noble Lord will support me in my Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I can give the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, the assurance for which he has asked. The intention is that there should be in the code of

1193
practice a noise level for ice-cream chimes. I do not think there will be any restriction on what tunes will be played, but the Government feel that certainly at this present moment it would be wrong to seek to specify any particular noise level. But it certainly would be our intention, if this can be evolved, that there should be a noise level in the code of practice. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said, this is an area in which we are making a tentative approach. But I can give the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, the assurance that this is what we have in mind.
LORD CRAIGTON: That is the comfort I had hoped for, and so I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 55 agreed to.
Clause 56 agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 57 agreed to.
Clause 58 [Noise exceeding registered level]:
6.58 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 74, line 10, leave out ("two months") and insert ("twenty-eight days").
The noble Lord said: At the outset of my remarks, I should like to express my appreciation and gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for having substantially modified subsections (3) and (4), compared with the Protection of the Environment Bill. On the previous occasion when I raised this matter, my Amendment specified 28 days as the time within which a local authority should notify an applicant of its decision about whether or not an increased level of noise is to be allowed. I see that a period of two months has now been specified. I should have thought such a delay could be very disadvantageous for an industrial company which was proposing to extend or alter its operations. For instance, it would involve the purchasing of new plant or equipment. Delay could give rise to the penalties of increased prices or extended delivery time. Also, if a company was intending to employ outside contractors, the extended delay in deciding could provide additional problems. There could be problems of meshing in a
1194
contractor's work with his other commitments.
It seems to me that the occasions when an application to increase a noise level is necessary will not be unduly frequent, and it is most unlikely that an authority will be overburdened with applications of this nature. Furthermore, the local authority concerned should already have in its possession a considerable amount of information to enable it to reach a decision on the application, as a result of fulfilling its obligations under Clause 57(1); namely:
"Every local authority which has designated its area or any part of its area a noise abatement zone shall measure the level of noise emanating from premises within the zone which are of any class to which the relevant noise abatement order relates."
So this tends to show that the authority would already have quite a large amount of information readily available to it. Surely there will be many cases where a decision could be taken within 28 days and, for the odd case where a longer period than 28 days appeared necessary, I should have thought there could be discussion and agreement between the authority and the applicant. As a nation, we are certainly heavily dependent on our industry as a whole, and one should minimise its difficulties and delays. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: The effect of this Amendment would be to reduce the period of time within which a local authority must deal with an application for consent to exceed the registered noise level from two months to 28 days. The noble Lord raised this matter on the previous Bill, and on that occasion the clause did not specify the time within which a local authority had to notify an applicant of its decision. The previous Administration undertook to consider whether such a time should be specified, since otherwise a decision could be delayed indefinitely. But they did say that it would probably be necessary to allow a longer period than the 28 days suggested by the noble Lord. The provision now in the Bill gives the local authority a two-month period, which can be extended if both parties agree.
The Amendment should be resisted. The issues before a local authority may be very complex and, particularly if it is

1195
a refusal, their decision could have considerable economic repercussions. They must, therefore, be given sufficient time in which to consider the application and to carry out the necessary consultation. The latter could well necessitate new noise measurements being taken. A time limit of 28 days could place an unnecessary restriction on local authorities, particularly bearing in mind that the number of working days would be correspondingly fewer. In many cases, decisions could well be taken within the 28 days. The two-month period to which the noble Lord has referred is, of course, the maximum, unless there is an agreement between the parties. I hope the noble Lord will understand that one has to be practical. Clearly, it is to the advantage of the local authorities and the commercial organisations to expedite these matters. But if you put in too tight a control you either get wrong decisions being taken on the part of the local authority to the detriment of the company, or the other way around. So I think that this is not an unreasonable period, and I hope the noble Lord will accept this point of view.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thank the noble Lord, the Lord Privy Seal for his explanation. I agree that the previous Administration did not specify any period of time, and that his Government did put in this period of two months. I should not have thought there was any particular magic in a period of two months. Although the noble Lord said that two months would be the maximum, I cannot see why the whole operation could not be carried out within the 28 days. I know the noble Lord referred to the fact that there are a number of Sundays in between, so that the working days would be less than 28. However, I know that this is something which is of great concern to industry, and I am sure that the noble Lord and his Department are aware of this.
I should have liked very much to see some provision stressing that if it is possible for a local authority to decide in a lesser time it should do so. If the noble Lord will not agree to have another look at the period of time, will he give an assurance that, in any circular of advice which may be issued by the Department to local authorities
1196
regarding the application of these provisions of the Bill, the importance of time in reaching decisions will be stressed, so that local authorities are very conscious that industry wants a quick answer on these matters.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord asked me whether I would give further consideration to this matter. Of course, when one is asked to do that one would be very foolish to say, No. On the other hand, the area of movement between 28 days and two months is so small that I think I would be less than honest if I did not say that I do not believe I could come anywhere near meeting the noble Lord. In regard to his latter remarks, it is quite clear that time is important. Time costs money not only in terms of industry, but also in terms of our services. No one would wish to have an unnecessary delay in the giving of consent. Whether this can be included in a circular, I should not like to say immediately. But I cannot see any reason why it should not be included, as it is an important matter.
VISCOUNT AMORY: In general, I sympathise very much with the point which my noble friend has made, that industry is usually in a hurry and wants quick decisions. In this case, if one thinks about it, there may well be cases where a few more weeks could result in a decision to the benefit of the company; whereas if there were a shorter period the local authority might feel that they had to act and therefore would act in a different way. I have an idea that there may be cases where two months is not excessive.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for what he has said and for the assurance that he gave. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 58 agreed to.
Clause 59 [Reduction of noise levels]:
7.10 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE LORD MERRIVALE moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 75, line 33, leave out ("magistrates' court") and insert ("the Secretary of State").
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for again putting down the Amendment that I moved earlier this

1197
year on the Protection of the Environment Bill but, with respect, I felt that some of the arguments put forward then by my noble friend Lady Young on behalf of Her Majesty's Government were not entirely satisfactory, at least not to my way of thinking. On Second Reading of this Bill on May 7 at column 428 I gave one or two reasons for so thinking.
On January 29 last my noble friend Lady Young contended that the magistrates would have the relevant technical expertise to deal with a noise reduction notice, and that they would have that expertise from handling cases under the Noise Abatement Act, 1960. But it is one thing to assess whether or not certain proposed measures will abate a nuisance, and a completely different thing to assess the technical and financial aspects of specific proposals in the absence of the objective of nuisance abatement, for notices issued under Clause 59 will contain noise levels and requirements which will be based not on the abatement of a nuisance but on the opinion only of the authority concerned. On January 29 at column 347 my noble friend, again speaking for Her Majesty's Government, said:
"… of course they"—
the magistrates—
"can get the technical advice that they require in order to make a judgment."
But from where are the magistrates to get this technical advice? The local authority inspectors could hardly be regarded as independent in such cases. It would therefore seem to me that magistrates are ill-equipped to handle appeals under this clause. In the absence of any other appellate body it would surely be more appropriate for such appeals to be made to the Secretary of State, who would be able to be guided in the same manner as he is guided when determining appeals under Clauses 58 and 60 of this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD SHEPHERD: My first reaction to this Amendment was similar to that of the noble Lord when he put it down, as to whether a bench of magistrates were the most suitable people to deal with a possibly technical matter. But on careful examination one finds that they have been carrying out these duties under the Noise Abatement Act for some 14 years. The noble Lord may brush this aside, but it is a fact. I asked whether
1198
there had been any cause for discontent in this particular method of taking appeals, and my understanding is that there has been none. I should have thought that it would be infinitely better, if there is to be an appeal to somebody, that it should be, so far as possible, a local appeal rather than to some person in the Secretary of State's Department.
Magistrates undertake a wide range of duties and they always seem to me, except for the odd occasion that hits the headlines, to perform not only a notable service but to bring a great deal of commonsense to their deliberations. There is of course a further appeal from the magistrates to the Crown Court, but that, I should have thought, would be exceptional. Having started off with some of the doubts of the noble Lord, I must say that finally I became quite convinced that, if we are to have such bodies to receive appeals, then these are the right bodies. They are certainly free from any local authority pressure or interest, and I think would take a proper view of the matter.
LORD MERRIVALE: I thank the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for his reply. If he felt like I did in the early stages of his consideration of my Amendment, I am sorry that he did not follow it through, but changed his mind, or that his Department changed his mind for him.
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Lord had expected that of me, I can assure him that there would not have been quite as many Amendments accepted as there have been on this Bill.
LORD MERRIVALE: I take the noble Lord's point. To return to my Amendment, the noble Lord said that he had a preference for local appeals rather than appeals to the Secretary of State. He also said that there was a provision whereby an appeal to the magistrates' court could then go, if need be and in rare cases, to a Crown Court. From a technical point of view, I do not think that would assist matters; and equally from a financial point of view it would not, because it would mean extra expenditure for the company concerned.
If the noble Lord prefers the idea of a local appeal, and if, shall we say, and as I believe, that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all, would Her Majesty's Government consider between now and the

1199
next stage, or when the Bill goes to another place, whether, instead of appeals going to a magistrates' court, they could go to a standing tribunal whose members would have expert knowledge of noise problems? Industry believes, and I think that this is reasonable, that the best alternative to the right of appeal to the Secretary of State would be to such a tribunal.
The Franks Committee on Administrative Tribunals and Inquiries in 1957 said that tribunals would be cheaper, more accessible and more expeditious than the courts. The tribunal can be provided with relevant policy by the Department, which can also assist the parties involved in assessing their prospects. This would allow the opportunity for an agreement to be reached without the need for the tribunal formally to adjudicate on the case. Legal costs can, however, be high, since such a tribunal is likely to induce legal representation. There is this proviso, I agree, from the financial point of view, but, as I understand it, industry would rather see an appeal, if it cannot go to the Secretary of State as it can on the other two clauses I mentioned earlier—Clauses 58 and 60—go to a tribunal rather than a magistrates' court.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord has made it clear that he is mainly concerned with industry, but may I say that the role of the magistrates here, surely, is to decide whether anything can be done to reduce noise within the best practical means test. A second job, which I think is important, is whether people in the neighbourhood will benefit from noise reduction. I suggest that the magistrates are a more likely body to take into account these conflicting interests than a tribunal, as suggested by the noble Lord. Since he has asked me to look at it, I will, but I do so expressing the view that I do not think he is likely to persuade me, at least having taken a view, to change it, but I will certainly look at it as required.
LORD MERRIVALE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for that assurance. I should like to mention that on the previous occasion I think I had the support of his then noble Leader, Lord Shackleton, and, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady White. Lord Shackleton said:
1200
"Before the noble Lord withdraws the Amendment, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would consider further what she has said. I did not find it entirely convincing. I have consulted my noble friend Lady White, and it may well be that on the Report stage the noble Lord may wish to return to it again when he has discussed it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 291/74, col. 347.]
So I am returning to it again, but I thank the noble Lord for his assurance at this stage.
BARONESS WHITE: I think my noble friend Lord Shackleton consulted me on the occasion referred to, but I have no recollection that I acquiesced in his opinion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 59 agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD): I propose to call Clauses 60 to 70 inclusive.
LORD SHEPHERD: I wonder whether the Committee would agree that we should take the Clauses to No. 67 which would complete Part III of the Bill and then to adjourn for, say, 35 minutes. Dinner has been laid on and I think we should support the establishment on this occasion, and for some of us who seem to have been on our feet for pretty well the whole afternoon, I am sure that we would enjoy a little break, after which perhaps we may, with our renewed spirit, make greater progress on the Bill. If that would be of general agreement I ask the Deputy Chairman whether he will put the Clauses up to No. 67 which would complete Part III and then move that we do adjourn during pleasure.
Clauses 60 to 67 agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
Moved, accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock and resumed at eight o'clock.]
Clause 68 [Regulations about motor fuel]:
On Question, Whether Clause 68 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD O'HAGAN: I should like to reassure your Lordships that I will not

1201
abuse the renewed vigour that we have all just accumulated by speaking for very long, even though it be on one of my favourite topics, which is the lead content of petrol. I have not put down an Amendment to this Bill, partly because my own Bill is still before your Lordships' House, but more so because of the assurances I received during the Second Reading of that Bill on April 2 from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. But there are one or two points on which I should like some further information, and I am taking this opportunity to ask the Government for further information and for some reassurance.
I should remind your Lordships (I hope for the last time) that on February 4 of this year 31 Members of the present Government Party voted for an Amendment of mine which, if carried into law, would have resulted in the total elimination of lead from petrol by 1980. Subsequently, when I introduced my own Bill to try to carry into effect that same Amendment, which was carried by your Lordships as a whole, with the support of the Labour Party, I heard from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, speaking on behalf of the Government, some very sensible practical objections to having this carried out; but at the same time, on April 2, the noble Lord gave me several very concrete assurances, which I would beg leave to quote. He said:
"We are all, I think, united in feeling that health considerations are of paramount importance, although of course it has been said—and inevitably it needed to be said—that economic considerations have to be carefully weighed".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/4/74, col. 890.]
I accept that, and, seeing my old sparring partner Lord Lucas of Chilworth here, I would say to him what I am sure is the view of most Members present here to-night: that on this issue, as on so many other environmental issues, there is a conflict of perfectly legitimate interests. On the one side there are the perfectly legitimate interests, the economic interests, of the big motor companies, on whom we are dependent for so many of our exports, and the great oil companies, who keep the wheels of our economy moving round. On the other side, there is the health and welfare of the people of this country; and it is the Government's job to be the arbiter between them.
1202
Now the lead content of petrol is a miniature cameo of these environmental versus economic conflicts, and on the occasion of the Second Reading of my Bill the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, balanced those two countervailing forces in the way I have just indicated. He went on to say—and he was speaking for the Government—that, even while acknowledging the difficulties of eliminating lead from petrol by 1980,
"What we seek to do, and what is surely desirable to do, is to ensure if we can that lead is not emitted into the atmosphere. That is our aim" [col. 892].
I was very encouraged by what he had to say, and therefore I was not in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, the Leader of the House, moved the Second Reading of the Bill now under discussion. Reading Hansard, I found what I hope was not but what appeared to be a shift in attitude. It is this apparent shift in attitude between the statements of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on April 2 and the statement of the noble Lord the Leader of the House on May 7, which has caused me to speak to-night to ask for further clarification and information as to what the Government's present attitude and intentions in this matter now are.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House summed up the dilemma to which I have just referred in these terms:
On the one hand, environmentalists and others concerned with pollution have drawn attention to the dangers that may arise from excessive concentration of lead in the atmosphere, and have called for tight controls. On the other hand, those concerned with the conservation of energy resources and with the balance of payments have rightly drawn attention to the very heavy cost of eliminating lead from petrol, particularly since the rise in the price of oil."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7/5/74, col. 381.]
That is quite unexceptional; there is no criticism of that. But then he goes on to say:
"The problem is to strike the right balance, given the uncertainties about the nature and extent of the health risks, if any,"—
I repeat, "the health risks, if any"—
"and about possible ways of reducing lead levels".
It was the common theme among even the most strong opponents of my own Bill that lead was not a substance the ingestion of which by humans should be encouraged; and, therefore, the words

1203
"health risks, if any" I felt to be rather a letdown from the assurances I had been previously given.
What I should like to know to-day from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, who I understand is to speak on behalf of the Government, is: what is the Government's attitude on this subject? What are they going to do? When are they going to come forward with some firm proposals under the permissive clause, Clause 68, which we are now debating? Is there a firm intention that is going to be implemented soon, or does what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said on May 7 represent a shift from what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said on April 2, which itself represents a falling back from what the Labour Party in this House said in February? I do not want to make too much of this, but there is a lot of cynicism created which results in people like me not being in political Parties. One of the reasons is that there is a difference between what politicians say and what they do. Very recently, people now in the Government called for a speedy solution to this problem. What are they going to do about it now?
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, could also give us some information about the inquiry that he mentioned during a previous debate as to the incidence in the Birmingham area, at Gravelly Hill, of dangers to health from lead in petrol.
8.10 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I have listened, as I am sure the Committee has listened, with the greatest interest to what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has just said in regard to the problem of lead in petrol. At the time of the Second Reading of this Bill my noble friend Lord Shepherd, the Leader of the House, described the serious view taken by the Government of this problem of lead in petrol. He then gave an assurance that the powers granted under this clause would be used to control the lead content of petrol, and to set whatever limits to the use of lead might be necessary to avoid real health dangers. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has twitted us a little, because there was seemingly some difference between what my noble friend and I said. I would say this: if there
1204
was a difference, it was more apparent than real. I am quite certain that my noble friend shares my view on the urgency with which we hope this problem can be tackled.
I should also like to say that I had very much hoped to come here to-day not only prepared but able to make a definitive statement on the Government's policy, and on the programme to be adopted during the next year or so for a further reduction of the lead content in petrol. Nobody regrets more than I that I am not in a position to do that, because there are still so many outstanding problems to be resolved as regards the additional costs which will have to be met, the availability of the crude oil which will be needed and the future trend in national demand. This is not meant to indicate that these matters are not being pursued very actively, because they are. But because they are so difficult, progress is taking rather longer than had been hoped, and therefore I would ask for the understanding of the Committee this evening. A statement will be made at the earliest possible moment. I feel sure the Committee will agree that it would be wrong to embark on a programme of such great importance without first completing the assessment of its effects on both the health and economy of the country, to which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has referred. We want to ensure that we have sufficient information available on which to reach the best answer that can be found to meet the problem.
The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, made specific mention of Gravelly Hill, and I am very conscious of what I said during the debate on the Second Reading of the noble Lord's Bill. I have kept the matter under active consideration and have asked to be kept continually informed on progress. I am satisfied that the report which I said was being prepared has now been with my honourable friend for some little time—though I must emphasise the word "little", because he has not had over-much time. These are important issues which require active consideration, and as soon as my honourable friend is able to reach the necessary decisions he will make them known. I hope the noble Lord will be content with that. He has drawn attention to what every one of us said on February 4, and

1205
to what was said on April 2. In terms of will to achieve the end, there is no falling off so far as we are concerned.
BARONESS YOUNG: Before we conclude our discussion on this clause, I should like to say that I appreciate the difficulties confronting the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, concerning it. He has my sympathy, because I know from my experience of replying to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that this issue is fraught with difficulties—not the least of which is the undoubted fact that the conclusive evidence on which to base a judgment is simply not there.
I wonder whether, before he produces the definitive statement that he has promised us and which I am sure we shall all welcome, the noble Lord can say whether he has any more evidence about the health risks involved. I think the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, are shared by the public at large and by the fuel companies, in particular; in other words, because there is a doubt about the long-term dangers to health as a consequence of lead in petrol, one must always err on the side of caution. Therefore, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has any further evidence on the health aspect of this matter, quite apart from what may come out of the published findings regarding Gravely Hill.
Will the noble Lord confirm that it is still the Government's intention that the agreement which I understand they reached with the motor and oil industries, that the lead content of petrol will be reduced to 0·45 grammes per litre by January 1, 1976, still stands? I should also like to ask whether the noble Lord is able to confirm that the real difficulty about reducing the lead content to a lower level—which I understand is being proposed by Germany—is the fact that if all countries did this there would be very serious shortages in the supply of crude oil, and serious consequences for our economy would ensue.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I have a strong suspicion that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, received the same document as I did in the post this morning, and therefore I believe she will be reasonably well aware of the position in this matter. I appreciate what she said about the difficulties involved; indeed,
1206
she has very good reason to know what they are. As we all know, the noble Baroness was at the Department of the Environment and I should like to say that I am sure she is reasonably up to date on the evidence regarding health aspects.
The question which the noble Baroness asked gives me an opportunity to make a point that I think needs making—that fuel is not the only source of lead in this country. I am expressing a personal view when I say that, so far as the health aspects are concerned we ought really to be rather more concerned about the effects of lead in general than we show ourselves to be. So far as the effects on health of lead in petrol are concerned, I do not think there is any substantial evidence about that of which the noble Baroness will not be aware. I am sure she is right in saying that the 0·45 grammes per litre target still holds good. I hope I have answered all the questions that have been asked on this matter.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: Since the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has raised the question of other sources of lead, I wonder whether he is now in a position to reply to the question I asked during the passage of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. The question concerned the Holgate Report, which I believe draws some comparisons between lead pollution from various different sources. Also, since the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, drew the principle that this clause suggests a balance between, on the one hand, the requirements of big business—the motor companies, the oil companies and so on—and the environment on the other. I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to emphasise that this is not only a question of big business, and the economy that goes with it, and the environment or the environmentalists. I say that because the very nature of the way in which we live could be greatly altered by any radical change in the composition of petrol, unless it was phased in quite gradually so that the cost of foodstuffs, and one's living costs can adapt.
I like the way in which the clause is written. I like the way the noble Lord has given assurances that this is not just to be left aside. It re-affirms the Government's intention to do something about

1207
it, bearing in mind that the date of striking the balance cannot be fixed at this moment of time. Far too many things have happened far too rapidly in far too short a period to ask of any Government that a balance should be struck within a short while. Again, we have his assurances that the matter is under review and that reports can be made so that we may gauge what kind of progress is made. Frankly, this should satisfy us all.
LORD O'HAGAN: With leave, if I could detain the Committee for a minute, I think the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, was referring to a difference of view between us that does not really exist about the conflict of industry and so on that he was describing. I was merely trying to hint that it is the Government's job to assess the various needs of the community and to set a fair balance between all these interests when they conflict. I was not singling anyone out for criticism. May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for what he has said and say to him that I was not imputing any falling off in his or his colleague's enthusiasm for dealing with this question but that the way in which this had been expressed seemed to show a decline in the urgency with which they were applying themselves to the job. May I thank him for what he said to-day and ask him whether he can hazard a guess as to whether the statement that he referred to, presumably enacting the powers given to the Government by this clause, will be likely to come during this year or not?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I can understand the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, trying to get me to commit myself to a date. I do not think that I can. I am quite sure that this is not the last occasion we shall be discussing lead in petrol. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, have said, I feel that the more we discuss it the more we get nearer to being in agreement and it would be a pity to reopen the controversy at this point. May I say in regard to the Holgate Report that I think I am right in recollecting that we anticipate it in about the first week in July.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 [Research and publicity]:
8.25 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 84, line 37, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 68 which is a probing Amendment. I was grateful, as no doubt were other noble Lords, to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, when at the Second Reading he drew our attention to the recent Report of the Central Unit on Environmental Pollution about monitoring. This caused me to read through this Report and to look afresh at the Sharp Report of July, 1973, and the Royal Commission Report of March, 1972, on the whole question of air pollution and information about it, and to wonder whether the balance of obligations laid upon the district authorities in Clause 71(1) was right. On reflection I do not think that it is, because we have the strongest demands from all three Reports for more and better marshalled information, more accessible to the public.
If I could remind your Lordships of what was said by those bodies on this point, the Royal Commission says:
"Measures should be devised to increase the availability and flow of information and remove the needless cloak of secrecy."
Then a year later the Working Party is reported to have said:
"They considered it in the public interest that information about all polluting wastes should be available not only to statutory bodies with a right to demand it but also to research workers and other responsible persons who could make use of such information to improve the environment."
In three successive Reports over a period of three years there is an insistence that more information should be made available to the public so that they can exercise their judgment on these issues.
Here is the opportunity in Clause 71(1) to get the local authorities to publish this information, not simply to keep registers which people who are specially interested can look at. They have access to the information to which the Alkali Inspectorate have access and they can publish that as well. Is seems to me that it was right of the Government in which I served and it is right for the present Government not to prescribe precisely how the districts

1209
should do this. That is what the Working Party suggested, but I think that would be going too far. It would be right to give guidance as to what is required of them, perhaps by circular, but on reflection I think that it is wrong to leave them with the option, as this clause does as it is worded at the moment, as to whether they do anything at all. If they decide to do nothing at all—and just conferring the power leaves them free to decide that they will do nothing at all by way of publishing information—then that precludes everybody else who was relying on that information from coming to grips with the problem.
I am aware that my Amendment which is only intended to probe this matter, is incorrectly worded because it changes the power to a duty both in respect of paragraph (a) and (b). I ask the Government to consider whether it would not be better to leave Clause 71(1)(a) as a power—a power to "undertake, or contribute towards the cost of, investigation and research"—but to change the publication of information as a duty which all districts have to shoulder. For myself I should be content if the Government this evening would undertake to look again at this matter in the light of those three recommendations with which I began my remarks.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has carefully explained the Amendment and made it quite clear that local authorities should give the information and publish the results of any investigation. The local authorities concerned are the councils of the London boroughs, the district councils of England and Wales and the Islands and district councils of Scotland. In many of these areas, such as the Scottish Highlands and the Islands, air pollution, thank goodness!, is of little other than very localised significance.
Air pollution is a problem in Sheffield while it is not in Shetland and this difference must be recognised. It would not be reasonable to impose on remote rural areas an obligation to research into and publish information about problems very low in their priorities. The reports to which the noble Lord referred are now under active consideration, and I will see, perhaps on Monday, what the state
1210
of their consideration is, and if there is anything which I can convey by word or letter I will be happy to do so.
The information we have suggests that most local authorities will be eager to use their powers to collect and publish information and that those whose air pollution is worst will be most keen. There may conceivably be one or two areas where the local people think these powers should be used but the authority do not. If this should happen the usual methods of lobbying are always open and of course the Secretary of State can be asked to use his powers under Clause 75 to direct local authorities to install and operate monitoring equipment. But cases like this are rare: local authorities are responsible bodies and we should rely on them to use these powers where they are needed. I will be in touch with the noble Lord some time next week about my researches into how active has been the consideration. The noble Lord perhaps has a more intimate knowledge of the Department than I have at present; but I will look into it and if I can help I will do so.
BARONESS WHITE: I wonder whether my noble friend can enlighten me. The definition of a local authority is the council of a district or a London borough plus—and I should hardly think they would undertake much research in this direction—the sub-treasurer of the Inner Temple and the under-treasurer of the Middle Temple. What happens about the other authorities, the counties, the metropolitan counties and the Greater London Council? There is nothing to stop them, if they so wish, undertaking this duty. In some circumstances there could be a situation where the Greater London Council, or one of the metropolitan counties, might wish to embark upon investigations of this kind, or support research. Am I right in thinking that they are entitled to do so?
LORD SHEPHERD: Looking very quickly at that subsection, I would think that what my noble friend has said is correct.
LORD SANDFORD: In view of those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.33 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 85, line 29, at end insert (", on the ground that exceptional hazard or difficulty was involved in measuring the emissions. Failing agreement, either party may within the next following 21 days appeal to the Secretary of State for a decision.")
The noble Baroness said: The reason for this Amendment is that in the Bill which we were previously considering there was a clause which had the effect of debarring a local authority from entry into an establishment in order to take measurements of emissions to the atmosphere if the occupier of that establishment virtually forbade them so to do. That particular clause does not appear in this Bill. It appears to me that the last four lines of Clause 71(3) have precisely the same effect. If one reads subsection (3) one will see that the local authority shall not be entitled to exercise the powers referred to in subsection 2(b) if during the requisite period the occupier of the premises concerned gives a notice to the authority requesting it to serve on him a notice under the following clause with respect to the emissions.
The following clause, Clause 72(1), says that the occupier personally will be asked by the local authority to undertake the measurements. In effect, the local authority itself will still be precluded from entering premises in order to make these investigations and undertake the measurements and recordings. This gives the power of veto to the occupier of industrial premises. My first thought was simply to leave it out altogether and I am still rather disposed to do that; but, out of regard for the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, I put in the phrases which appear in my Amendment because I was impressed by some remarks that he made in our earlier deliberations, when he suggested that in certain areas the local authority might have difficulty in providing staff of a calibre capable of undertaking certain rather sophisticated and complicated operations in measuring emissions to the atmosphere. There might be some risk for people not adequately qualified undertaking certain operations.
I very much doubt whether these safeguards are really necessary. It was in an endeavour to enlist the sympathy of the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and hoping that one would not attract any objection
1212
to the spirit of this Amendment, that I tried to meet what I thought may be his reservations about such an Amendment. It was for that reason that this Amendment refers to a possible ground on which the occupier of premises might request a local authority not itself to undertake the operation, but to allow the occupier to do it and then inform the authority of the results. If one referred to exceptional hazard or difficulty it seems to me this should meet any conceivable case the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, might have had in mind.
One then has to provide for the possibility of failure to agree between the occupier of the premises and the local authority as to whether these conditions were fulfilled, and hence the reference to a possible appeal to the Secretary of State. If one does not put in an Amendment of this kind then, as I say, the occupier of the premises has an absolute right to debar the local authority from entering the premises at all for this purpose. This is wrong; the local authority has such a right. But I am prepared to consider that there might be exceptional circumstances where there was some risk or unusual difficulty in performing the operations. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My noble friend has, with her usual skill and ability, presented the case for the Amendment as she sees it. I ought to try to put the position as we see it. Clause 71(2) provides that a local authority may get information on emissions to atmosphere from industry not registered under the Alkali Act in one of three ways—by notices, by agreement or by entering to take the measurements themselves. Subsection (3) provides that a local authority cannot do the measuring themselves until after they have given the occupier notice of their intentions, and during the period of notice the occupier may opt for a notice under Clause 72 so that he can measure the information himself. As I am advised—and considerable thought has been given to this—the effect of this Amendment would be to limit the power of exclusion to cases where exceptional hazard or difficulty was involved in measuring emissions and provide for an appeal to the Secretary of State.
The notification procedure of subsection (3) was included so that the industrialist would have the right to know what was to

1213
be measured, and how the measuring was to be done. The right to opt for a notice is included for two reasons; first, that the industrialist may for some reason, such as that he is already measuring all or part of the emissions concerned, wish to do the job himself. There is no scope, it seems to us, for abuse here. The local authority have full power under Clause 82 to check what is being done, and if the notice is not fulfilled they have a right under Clause 72(8) to measure for themselves. In any event, an industrialist opting for a notice will be obliged to pay for the measurements. The other reason for the right to opt is that a person who has opted and duly received a notice under Clause 72 then gets a right of appeal under Clause 73. This clause enables appeal to the Secretary of State on grounds of prejudice of a trade secret to an unreasonable degree, or damage to the public interest, or difficulty of obtaining the information.
The effect of the Amendment would be to restrict the scope for recourse to the provision, because the local authorities would end up doing most of the measurements themselves. It is not contemplated that there will, in practice, be many appeals but, as we see it, it would not be equitable to restrict as drastically as the Amendment proposes the occupier's right to put up a case for non-disclosure. The Bill as it stands seeks to strike a balance which the Amendment would destroy. With the greatest respect to my noble friend it seems to us to serve no great purpose, because the last word never rests with the occupier. I hope that my noble friend will consider what I have had to say on this Amendment, because I think that it justifies us in asking her not to press it.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I have read these clauses as they now stand, and quite considerable alterations have been made, particularly to Clause 71, and I feel that the point which I was trying to make in Committee on the last Bill is now covered. I think we generally agreed—at any rate, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, agreed with me—that what you really want is for the local council to get together with the industrialist to make sure that proper tests are made of emissions by people who are sufficiently skilled to do the job. There are various
1214
alternative ways of doing this, which I think are now allowed for. Also, if the industrialist was difficult about it the power was needed to go in as a matter of right. If, on the other hand, the industrialist thought that the council was being unreasonable, then he had the right of appeal to the Secretary of State. I think that that is the case now in this Bill as it stands. I think that the Amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady White, would be necessary.
BARONESS WHITE: Needless to say, I shall read with the greatest care what my noble friend has said, because it is not at all clear from the Bill as it is at present drafted that the prohibition on the local authority exercising its powers under subsection (3), if the occupier invokes subsection (1) of Clause 72, is covered by Clause 82. My noble friend made reference to this point. Perhaps it would be unfair to continue this discussion until I have had a chance of reading precisely what he said, but it would appear that the local authority is absolutely debarred. I hope I am wrong in that, and that Clause 82 does cover it. I had read it in such a way that I assumed it did not. But if I am wrong and it really does mean that the local authority has the last word and can enter to check exactly what is being done by the occupier, then I should, of course, be content.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I do not know whether it will help my noble friend if I say that I am advised that Clause 82(1)(a)(iii) means that a local authority can go in and check up on the industrialist's own measurement. I thought that if I said that it may help my noble friend when she is considering the matter.
BARONESS WHITE: I am greatly obliged to my noble friend. All I would say is that one really needs a lawyer to interpret this Bill, because it is far from clear to anybody reading a plain English sentence, which says that a local authority shall not be entitled to do such-and-such, who is then informed that in fact it does not matter very much, because under Clause 82(1)(a)(iii) they can go and have a look at what the chap is doing. If that is really so, then the provision is probably better than I thought it was. Anyhow, I should like to study carefully

1215
what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.47 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 86, line 8, at end insert ("or to have an interest in local amenity").
The noble Baroness said: This is a somewhat different point which is concerned with the proposal that a local authority shall, from time to time, consult various categories of persons. The categories of persons to be consulted for what is a purely local situation are precisely the same as the categories of persons whom the Secretary of State at national level is enjoined to consult in certain other circumstances. However, it seems to me that here, where one is considering the ways in which the local authority shall exercise its powers under Clause 71, one ought to bring in other people besides those listed here and who are carrying on some trade or business, or the organisations of those carrying on some trade or business, or even those conversant with problems of air pollution.
I am not at all certain that the phrase, "those persons … conversant with problems of air pollution", would include persons who have an interest in local amenity. They could be local inhabitants, people living in the neighbourhood who might be affected, civic societies and the like, or other groups concerned with the general amenities, including the condition of the atmosphere. I thought that it would be advisable to make it perfectly plain that such persons, who might not have scientific expertise in matters of air pollution, but who might, nevertheless, have a very strong interest in the effects of it, should be quite specifically included among those who should be consulted by the local authority. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am very pleased to say that I am able to accept this Amendment. But I ought to enter a caveat that the Government might want at a later stage to see whether the description of all the groups to be consulted could be expressed more succinctly without altering the sense. I am extremely pleased to be able to accept the Amendment.
BARONESS WHITE: I presume therefore that if at some later stage the Government find some more elegant form of words it will be up to them to table them?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Yes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 71, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
8.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: On the Second Reading of this Bill (col. 383) the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, told us that there was to be a review of the whole system of air pollution control. I hope he will forgive us if from this side of the Committee we have some scepticism as to exactly what the need for that is. We had the Royal Commission Report in March, 1972; the Report of the Sharp Working Party in July, 1973, and now the report of the Central Unit for Environmental Pollution in February, 1974, all covering this subject. I will not take up the time of the Committee to-night by asking the noble Lord to give us the rationale of this review now, but I feel certain that my right honourable friends and honourable friends will be asking his right honourable friend at later stages of this Bill in another place what it is all about and why it is necessary.
I wish to ask him to-night to confirm that the three following points will be borne in mind in any review leading to a restructuring of this business of air pollution control. First, it really would be folly to weaken or to reduce the influence of the Alkali Inspectorate or to disperse their skills bearing in mind that it is one of the oldest and most respected Inspectorates in the world and is the envy of almost all other industrial nations that have to deal with this problem. Secondly, it would be ludicrous to abandon our well-established and long-established principle of seeking to abate pollution by the best practical means—what the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, at col. 418, described as "the pragmatic approach"—and to put in its place a wasteful system of arbitrary, absolute and uniform standards.
Would the noble Lord also agree that it would be necessary to consider a third

1217
point; namely, that it would be nonsense to move away from proceedings by way of co-operation and understanding and patient reconciliation of interests just because the current fashion to-day is to believe that social progress can best be made—or even only be achieved—by engineering and fermenting conflict. I should feel reassured if the noble Lord could tell us that those three factors will be in the mind of anyone who is undertaking a review of air pollution control.
BARONESS WHITE: Before my noble friend replies, may I say that there are certainly some of us who have certain hesitations about the absolute value of the Alkali Inspectorate. During the Second Reading debate I referred to an extremely interesting report by Social Audit on the Alkali Inspectorate, which I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have both read. I would not say that I subscribe to everything in that report, but I think it brings out—particularly in its later paragraphs—the very genuine problems which can arise when the Alkali Inspectorate, which is primarily a technical or science-based body of men, are in a position where in fact they are making value judgments for which they have no responsibility. They come to conclusions which some of us at least suppose are more properly to be determined by elected representatives, particularly in the local authorities. But the local authorities are not always in a position to know the basis of facts on which the Alkali Inspectorate reach their conclusions.
There are quite genuine differences of view about this. I understand that some little while ago there was a movement on the part of some of the major local authorities to make the Alkali Inspectorate only an advisory body and to lay upon the local authorities the duty of enforcement. I can quite see that this division of responsibility might also lead to problems; and although I really do not know, I imagine that it is considerations of this sort which would have led my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to think that one ought to have a more general review of a position where there are perfectly valid conflicts of opinion and of principle.
1218
I do not think anyone would imagine that simply because the Alkali Inspectorate had existed for, I think it is, 110 years, that was necessarily a reason for maintaining it unchanged. In fact, as we all know, in the Safety and Health at Work Bill which is before another place at the present time, the Alkali Inspectorate is going to be moved from one Department to another. This in itself needs examination, because if the Alkali Inspectorate is working in the Department of Employment, on the face of it one would imagine that its responsibilities would be much more strongly directed to considerations of safety and health in the workplace. This is in itself very important and necessary, but in this Bill we are concerned with emissions into the atmosphere as they would affect people living outside the workplace. Therefore there is again some division of interest and responsibility.
So I find it difficult to understand why the noble Lord should apparently be taking exception to the suggestion of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that there should be this general examination of the position, which is not provided for either in this Bill or in the Bill which is before another place. There are some possibly irreconcilable interests here and therefore I think it is very statesmanlike indeed, and I was delighted to learn that my right honourable friend had made this proposition.
LORD SHEPHERD: I find myself very much in agreement with my noble friend in this matter. I do so rather as a newcomer to the problem but as one who perhaps has been part of the problem, in that I have been an industrialist in a particular field which has been criticised for the extent of pollution that the petro-chemical industry creates. There is undoubtedly concern, suspicion and uncertainty in this whole field. I have listened to the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, and on later Amendments we have the clash of industry, the efficiency of industry and the consequences of industrial growth with the natural desire of people like my noble friend Lady White for the protection of the environment. These are issues in regard to which I suppose no one really can put

1219
his hand on his heart and say, "I know the entire truth".
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, recalled what I said during the Second Reading debate on this Bill; that is, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is to set up a review of the whole system of air pollution control. I can now say that my right honourable friend intends to ask the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution to undertake this task. Inquiries are to be set up urgently and they will be asked to report within one year. It will obviously be for the Royal Commission to decide what precise form the inquiry will take, but I have no doubt that they will wish to look at the recent publicity about air pollution and, of course, the points made in your Lordships' House during the passage of this Bill and its predecessor. My right honourable friend and I will ensure that Parliament will be kept informed of progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred to the three reports on information and on monitoring. A new review is much more basic over the whole subject of air pollution control. The noble Lord asked me three questions. The first was about the folly to weaken the Alkali Inspectorate. This is a rather ancient organisation that has served us well. I think there are many who feel that they are subject to an inquiry, but an inquiry not in any sense being critical of what they have done or what they can do in the future. I have no doubt at all that the Royal Commission will be well aware of their merits.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, then hoped that there would be no intention to abandon the best practical means. I can give him that assurance. His third point was on co-operation. Of this we can only be well aware. At the end of the day it is only through co-operation—if I may say so, a theme very much of the Labour Party, when it was silting on the Benches opposite, on a number of pieces of legislation—that one makes progress. I hope I have given the noble Lord a satisfactory answer to the three questions he asked.
LORD SANDFORD: I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I am tremendously reassured by what he said. I think the
1220
news, which is news, that the Royal Commission are to be asked to undertake this task is very good news indeed because it will certainly secure that there is no unnecessary duplication.
Clause 71, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 72 [Notices requiring information about pollution]:
9.3 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE had given Notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 72:
Page 86, line 38, leave out ("is being") and insert ("may be").
The noble Baroness said: I do not propose to pursue this Amendment because I think it is subsumed in the announcement that my noble friend has just made. When we were discussing this before, the point of the Amendment—which was slightly different—was that circumstances could arise where there was conflict between the Alkali Inspector and the local authority; and there might be a position of deadlock if the local authority wished for some information which the Alkaline Inspector was not prepared to give. When we debated it in the other Bill on February 4, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said: "It will need much more than this Amendment to put matters right." I could not agree with him more. I think the inquiry about which we have just heard will probably consider this matter among others. Therefore, I do not intend to move this Amendment.
9.4 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 87, leave out lines 4 to 7.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 73, and at the same time speak to Amendment 80 which are both probing Amendments designed to secure a short discussion about the position of pollution arising from Crown premises and caused in the service of the Crown. I imagine that I speak for the whole Committee in saying that we all want to see the Crown subject, in one way or the other, to all the restrictions and restraints designed to prevent and abate pollution. I am not satisfied, myself (perhaps the noble Lord can satisfy me) that we have really secured this in the Bill as it stands.

1221
There is a reasonably satisfactory provision in the Clean Air Act of 1956, at Section 22, from which I will read extracts briefly, which makes it the function
"of the local authority … to report to the responsible Minister any cases of emissions of dark smoke, grit or dust, from premises which are under the control of any Government department … which are within a smoke control area",
and anything constituting a nuisance to the inhabitants of the neighbourhood, and so on. On receipt of such report
"the said Minister shall inquire into the circumstances and, if his inquiry reveals there is cause for complaint, shall employ all practical means for preventing or minimising the emission of the smoke, grit or dust or for abating the nuisance and preventing a recurrence thereof."
That seems satisfactory so far as it goes. If that is what can happen in respect of the enforcement of the Clean Air Act, then we should like to feel—and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady White, would like to feel—that every such instance of a report should be included in the information published by local authorities under Clause 71(1)(b) so that people know what has been going on. They would like to feel that Ministers receiving such a report will respond on each occasion not only by taking action to prevent recurrence, but by giving an account which can subsequently be published about what has been done by way of abatement or prevention.
Most of all what I should like to see embodied in the Bill—or for the noble Lord to confirm that it is in the Bill already, if it is—is similar provision made before this Bill leaves Parliament to review the operation of this clause and other clauses like it, and making it apply to other fields besides that of clean air. As I say, I should like to see a reference made to what reports from local authorities to Ministers have been received, and what Ministers have done about them in respect of their various offending Crown premises published in such annual reports as we can expect under Clause 71(1)(b). If there is further amendment of this Bill to be done in order to secure this, I would recommend to the noble Lord and his right honourable friend that he be guided in this by Parliament. I have a feeling—and I think others might share this—that if this is a matter which is put out for consultation in Whitehall, from where Crown premises are controlled, all sorts
1222
of influences and impediments will be put in the way and we shall not get anything in at all. So I hope the noble Lord will agree with me, that if we want anything done here the right course is to be guided by Parliament.
LORD SHEPHERD: I would first say a general word about the way in which this Bill affects the Crown. There is a well-established convention that legislation conferring powers on local authorities and other non-governmental bodies should not formally bind the Crown. This is because it is held to be wrong constitutionally for local bodies of this kind to have powers of entering, inspection and control over the Crown and its Government Departments. But that does not, of course, mean that the Crown or Government Departments are to behave as though they are above the law. On the contrary, the normal practice is for arrangements to be made administratively to ensure that they comply with the standards set by the law. The Control of Pollution Bill has in the main followed this convention and the licensing procedures of Part I, the consent procedures of Part II, and the noise regulation procedures of Part III will not directly bind the Crown. In Part IV, however, it has been thought reasonable to adopt a different approach because these clauses are rather different in character.
The Crown and Government Departments will be expected to co-operate with local authorities, but again they are exempted from the formal powers of entry and inspection by the local authorities. This exemption is formally necessary, because we retain the right for Government Departments to refuse entry to local authority inspectors in some cases. It would not be right, for example, for local authorities to have a legal right of entry into Defence establishments. For this reason, the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, No. 73, must be resisted. But having said this, I would again emphasise that there is every intention that, in practice, the Crown should comply with the requirements of the Bill wherever possible, and I can assure the Committee that all Government Departments and establishments will be expected to give the fullest co-operation to local authorities in exercising their functions under Part IV of this Bill and, indeed, under other Parts of the Bill.

1223
May I say a word about Clause 95(3) on which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have tabled a probing Amendment? The purpose of subsection (3) is to make clear that the tenants of Crown and Government Departments are subject to all the controls of this Bill. As I have explained, the Crown and Government Departments are not in general bound by the Bill, but there is no reason why tenants of the Crown and Government Departments should not be subject to all the controls, and the subsection so provides. How far the Crown and Government Departments fulfill their obligations under Statutes is, I know, always subject to questioning. I should have thought the best procedure here was through Parliament, to which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, referred, because it is here that Ministers who are responsible for Departments are themselves answerable. It may not necessarily be practical that all these matters should be raised in either House, but I have no doubt at all that if a letter from a Member drawing attention to a certain aspect has no effective consequence, then the quickest and most efficient way of getting a result is to put down a Question in either House. So I would agree with Lord Sandford. I think that in dealing with the Crown the method should be through Parliament. There are many ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, now knows and also has experienced, by which pressure can be brought on Ministers and also on the Departments concerned.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation and I certainly accept the theology behind the first part of his answer, that we cannot have local authorities having legal statutory rights over the Crown. But I like the pattern of the Clean Air Act 1950 and would have hoped that it was possible to adapt it to the other Parts of this Bill. I would be content to leave the matter there at the moment. Perhaps I might, however, invite the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, while he is reflecting about the degree to which servants of the Crown and the premises of the Crown can be entrusted to set standards in the environment, to go and have a look at the squalor at the back of No. 2 Marsham Street, remaining after the building has
1224
been in use for about three or four years, and then consider whether we should tighten up the position.
LORD SHEPHERD: I can only say to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that I have been in the D.O.E. building, but have known of its existence for only six weeks. So I am not quite sure what the precincts are like. I was being a little hesitant in replying to this Amendment, having made one slight nonsense on a previous Bill when I moved an Amendment which I should have opposed, and so I was slightly reluctant to be too forthcoming to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. But my noble friend reminded me that this is an area where I am advised that I can say that I will undertake to have further thoughts. In the light of what the noble Lord has said, I shall be most happy to consider the point, and also to make sure that I will look at the area he has in mind on either Friday or Monday.
BARONESS WHITE: May I just inquire whether the next time I see the most hideous black smoke emerging from the roof of the Department of the Environment and I write a letter to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, or even ring him up, he will ensure it is stopped?
LORD SHEPHERD: If the noble Baroness, Lady White, sees black smoke coming out on Wednesday morning, she will know that it is the Briefs from this Bill that are burning.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 72 agreed to.
Clause 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Regulations about research and publicity]:
9.17 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 88, line 29, at end insert—
"(cc) require each local authority to maintain in a prescribed form a register of information obtained by the authority by virtue of section 71(2) of this Act, other than information as to which a direction in pursuance of subsection (2) of the preceding section provides that the information is not to be disclosed to the public;").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I should like

1225
to move Amendment No. 74 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 75. The effect of this Amendment is to provide for a register to be maintained by each local authority to obtain information on emissions by any one of the three methods specified in Clause 71(2). This will bring these clauses more into line with Clause 35 dealing with water. The register will not contain information which the Secretary of State has agreed should not be published in the public interest because of its relationship to a trade secret. The register will be available for inspection in the town hall concerned, and the public will be able to take copies of that register. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: While I welcome the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy, and the consequential Amendment No. 75, I am disturbed to find that in this Amendment it is proposed that information shall not be disclosed if the Secretary of State has issued a direction under Clause 73(2). However, we surely agreed in discussing the register on water effluent that the fact that an exemption had been granted in Part II of the Bill should be recorded in the register for water, giving the name of the person or firm concerned and the place, but not disclosing anything further by way of details. It seems to be a quite serious omission in this otherwise admirable Amendment that there should be no reference to the fact that if a direction has been given under Clause 73(2), then the fact that it has been given by the Secretary of State should be recorded, but without any further details of the substance of it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think the best assurance I can make is that we will examine carefully what my noble friend Baroness White has had to say on this. At the moment it seems to me that we have covered the position, but we will certainly consider what she has had to say. If the position is not as satisfactory as we had thought we were making it, there is every reason for coming back to it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 75. Amendment moved—
Page 88, line 46, at end insert—
("(5) A register maintained by a local authority in pursuance of regulations made by
1226
virtue of subsection (3)(cc) of this section shall be open to public inspection at the principal office of the authority free of charge at all reasonable hours, and the authority shall afford members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining from the authority, on payment of reasonable charges, copies of entries in the register.").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 75 to 82 agreed to.
Clause 83 [Provisions supplementary to s. 82.]:
THE EARL OF COURTOWN THE EARL OF COURTOWN moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 93, line 43, at end insert—
("( ) If the person referred to in subsection (1) of section 82 is not a full-time officer of the relevant authority, that authority shall notify the owner or occupier of the land or vessel in question of—

(a) the name of that person;

(b) the nature of his full-time employment, including the place of that employment;

(c) the nature of his employment by th authority; and

(d) the same information regarding such other persons as he may take with him.")

The noble Earl said: Clauses 82 and 83 allow a relevant authority to authorise any person to enter upon any land or vessel for the purposes of this Bill and to take any other person and equipment as may be necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, mentioned on Second Reading, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, today, considerable technical knowledge and experience will be required by those carrying out some of the duties involved, and it is questionable whether, at first at any rate, many authorities will have such people on their staff. As the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, it may even be dangerous for people untrained to this work to carry out some of the tests that may be necessary. Such authorities, therefore, will either have to use one of the established Inspectorates, the Alkali or Factory Inspectorates, or alternatively technical consultants with the relevant training.
No responsible industrialists should be worried about a visit from a member of one of these established Inspectorates, or indeed from an inspector of the local authority. But the situation may be quite

1227
different if the inspector is from a firm of technical consultants who may, in a few weeks' time, be advising one of his competitors at home or overseas. Indeed, under the Bill as it stands at present by Clause 83(2) he could bring in to assist him the employee of a competitor, although I hope that no responsible consultant would do such a thing. I am aware that in Clause 85 and other clauses it is provided that disclosure of information is illegal, but the fine cannot exceed £400, which is tiny in relation to the value of the information which might be obtained regarding the layout and operating processes of a plant. It is unlikely that information will be communicated in a form which would provide evidence of such an offence. The consultant however responsible, who would not think of giving the information by putting it in writing for somebody else, cannot possibly exclude part of the knowledge which is in his head, and indeed consultants build up much of their value on the basis of the jobs they have been employed on.
This Amendment tries to deal with this point by ensuring that an industrialist at least knows who the inspector is and whom he is bringing with him. He will know how much guidance they will need; and, if he is worried about the security aspect, he can then take the matter up with the local authority. I am assuming the local authority would be reasonable in all cases and would meet him. On the other hand, if they would not meet him, then presumably he could refuse admission to the works and make his case before a justice of the peace. This may not be the best way of achieving the object of the Amendment, but I think I have said enough to show what I am driving at. I think this is a real safeguard and one which is needed. I am open to any suggestion of a better way of doing it. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I should very much like to support my noble friend in this and urge Her Majesty's Government to recognise the important distinction, which he has put before us, that exists between persons who are industrial consultants, though engaged by the local authorities, and people who are the direct employees of the local authorities.
1228
I think my noble friend has made it quite clear that an entirely different set of considerations apply in the mind of industry being visited by those two categories. I hope the Government will either be able to accept this Amendment, with which I personally cannot find any fault, or if for any technical reason they cannot do so, they will accept the principle behind it and provide for this important distinction.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: May I say shortly that we take the point that the noble Earl makes in presenting his Amendment. I have to say that we think the Amendment, as drafted, would not satisfactorily meet the point he seeks. If he would agree to withdraw it we shall certainly look at the position, consider it, and if we can we shall be as helpful as possible. I do not know whether he would like to have a talk with us before Report stage to see whether he is satisfied with the consideration that is given to it. We shall look at it. It is a matter that needs careful consideration. We are certainly not satisfied that he would achieve his object as the Amendment is drafted.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I am quite happy that the Government should do that. The Amendment I moved I felt was a most imperfect way of achieving my aim. Probably the Amendment is badly drafted. But this is an important matter. We hear a great deal about industrial espionage. There is not only an obvious possibility for industrial espionage in these particular circumstances but there is also the possibility, as I indicated, of almost accidental imparting of useful information to a competitor at home or overseas. Do understand from what the noble Lord has said that he is hoping to bring something forward on Report stage in this House, or in another place?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I should certainly not wish to be misunderstood. I said that we would consider the position, and it might be helpful if the noble Earl would care to have a word with us about it before we reach Report stage so that he is satisfied that we fully understand him and he fully understands us.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: I am at the noble Lord's disposal at any time he

1229
wishes to discuss this matter. I have said almost all I need to say about it. I think that the problem is quite clear. With those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 83 agreed to.
Clauses 84 to 90 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 91 to 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Interpretation etc.—general]:
9.29 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 102, line 24, at end insert—
(""Water Authority" has the same meaning as in the Water Act 1973.").
The noble Baroness said: in the absence of the noble and learned Viscount, if my noble friend on the Front Bench tells me that this Amendment will be a helpful one, I shall be happy to move it on behalf of the noble and learned Viscount.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I have to say that we feel that this Amendment is quite unnecessary. I am probably running a very serious risk in saying that. I am delighted that I am saying this to my noble friend and not to the noble and learned Viscount. I appreciate that I am running a risk at a later stage.
LORD SANDFORD: If it is any consolation to the noble Lord I will support him because that is what I said on the last occasion.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I was going to remind the Committee of that fact.
BARONESS WHITE: In that case, on behalf of the noble and learned Viscount, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95 agreed to.
Clauses 96 to 98 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Repeals]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 118, leave out lines 27 and 28.
The noble Lord said: Briefly, Section 13 of the Port of London Act 1964 has already been repealed by the Port of London Act 1968, Section 103 of which included a new provision which was itself repealed by Statutory Instrument 1974, No. 607. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 99 agreed to.
LORD SHEPHERD: I should not like this occasion to pass without first expressing some sincere words of appreciation to my noble friends Lord Garnsworthy and Lady White—particularly for the brevity and punch of her speeches—and especially to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We have had not only co-operation but sympathy. It is not easy to pick up a Bill of such complexity as this at such short notice, and have to deal with a noble Lord and a noble Baroness who, shall I say, were brought up with it. But they have been very helpful and I hope they will think that, as a consequence not only of their labours but of the labours of the whole Committee, what was a fairly good Bill on Second Reading is now a much better one. Report stage is only a few days away and I hope to be moving a Standing Order in order that we can take the Third Reading on the same day, so that the Bill can go to another place.
Time is short but if there is anything that we can do—and I am thinking particularly of the noble Earl, Lord Courtown—we shall be most happy to do so. Even then, if there are still items which we have not been able to finalise here, there are the proceedings in another place, and I would certainly be open to any approaches by any Member of this Committee. I would certainly ensure that my right honourable friend and honourable friends in another place responsible for the Bill took into account any views or any doubts that may still exist, bearing in mind the speed with which we have dealt with this Bill—but a speed which I think the House will feel, in the end, was utterly justified. I thank the Committee very sincerely indeed.
BARONESS YOUNG: In response, may I say that I should very sincerely like

1231
to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, on the manner in which they have managed the whole of the Committee stage. They have my sympathies, because this is an immensely complicated Bill involving four separate subjects of a tremendous amount of technical detail which is difficult to grasp. We, for our part, are very grateful for the help that we have had. As I said at the beginning, this is a Bill the principles of which we support, and we wish to see it on the Statute Book.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that the Bill had been endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act, 1911.