Lords Sitting of 17 April 1975

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Edmundsbury and Ipswich.
The Duke of Norfolk—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his cousin.
The Earl of Cromer—Took the Oath.

NHS HOSPITALS AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: 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, when pay beds are phased out of National Health hospitals, special medical equipment possessed only by such hospitals will continue to be available, under suitable medical operation and supervision, to patients who have elected to receive medical care outside the National Health Service.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, after phasing out of pay beds, all those normally entitled to use the National Health Service will be able to use it as they do now, whether up to that point they had been private patients or not. But if the noble Lord is asking whether at that time the National Health Service will support private consultants and private hospitals by making available to them special equipment originally provided for use in the NHS, this will depend upon the circumstances. The policy will be to continue so far as possible a separation of private and National Health Service facilities. There will, however, be no change in the arrangements for the supply of blood from the Blood Transfusion Service.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, perhaps I heard wrongly, but that reply seemed to me a little contradictory. The noble Lord gave an assurance that
478
the special apparatus would be available, and then he seemed to say that the separation of the services would continue. Can I have an assurance that this highly specialised, very expensive equipment, which no private hospital can possibly contemplate having, will be available for the general body of tax-payers all of whom have contributed to the National Health Service?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think that when the noble Lord reads my reply in Hansard tomorrow he will feel that I have said anything that is contradictory. What I said was that the whole question of the use of special equipment will have to be considered. I cannot hold out any hope that such equipment, which is designed for use in National Health Service hospitals, will be available to consultants in the private sector. All I can say is that this matter will be considered and there will be discussions.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether it is possible for special equipment held in private hospitals, which is not available at the moment to National Health Service hospitals, to be made available to National Health Service patients?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think we have to consider the matter under discussion; that is, what will happen when pay beds are phased out and there is a separation between the National Health Service and the private sector. The question of equipment is a matter for discussion, which has not yet taken place.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that much special equipment which is in National Health Service hospitals has been provided by private benefactors?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Presumably, my Lords, for the National Health Service.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, since it is apparently the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government to phase out pay beds altogether, presumably they have counted the cost. Will the noble Lord tell the House what will be the loss of revenue to the National Health Service?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot, because I do not have the information. But, obviously, if the noble Lord wishes to put down a Question on this matter, I will get the Answer.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, may not the equipment have been meant for patients and not for the Service, and should not human suffering transcend political differences?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, what the noble and learned Lord says may well be right. If equipment has been given for a specific purpose, then one would assume that that purpose will be continued.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, in working out the loss of revenue that will result to the National Health Service, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, will the noble Lord also provide figures of capital expenditure on additional beds which will not now have to be incurred, because of the fact that private beds will be available to National Health Service patients?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I seem to remember that when this matter was raised some time ago—I am speaking entirely from memory—I told the House that the building of a 1,000-bed hospital at that time cost something like £20 million. I imagine it is considerably more now.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, will logic be allowed to enter into the eventual decision? The decision at the moment, apparently, is that the Blood Transfusion Service will be available because no other blood bank is there. If it is considered right that the blood bank shall be available, because it is the only thing available to keep people alive, ought not the special equipment at present available in the National Health Service hospitals to come under the same decision?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have said to the House—I think this is the third time—that this is a matter which is under consideration. I cannot go further than that, and I am not likely to be drawn on this matter.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, if it is a matter which is under consideration, does the Minister feel that he would be able to give us a fuller reply if we put down a Question in, say, a month's time?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I would think not, my Lords.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that lack of enthusiasm among consultants towards the National Health Service is far more important than a cessation of restrictive practices? Can he say what constructive steps the Government propose to take to maintain the highest possible standards of medical practice in the National Health Service?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is another question that goes wide of the original one. I do not think I ought to be drawn on this matter.
Lord ENERGLYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord reconsider his answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare?—because the question that he posed dealt not only with equipment that is of immediate use, but also that which advances the frontiers of medical knowledge.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have nothing to add to what I have already said.

CYPRUS: PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION
3.15 p.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they support the principle of an all-Party Parliamentary delegation visiting Cyprus, as a good will and fact-finding mission, with a view to obtaining first-hand knowledge, an on-the-spot assessment and the true facts of the situation there and whether they will use their best endeavours to promote such a visit.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Her

481
Majesty's Government support the principle of such a visit. We hope that any such delegation would comprise a wide cross-section of Parliamentary views and that it would also visit Greece and Turkey.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply and also for his statement of Her Majesty's Government support for this suggestion. Is he aware that, so far as it goes, the statement will be welcomed by the several hundred British people who are resident in Cyprus, apart from others?—for we are a guarantor Power. May I ask the Minister whether he would not agree that an all-Party Parliamentary delegation as a good will mission could very effectively investigate and report on the plight of misplaced and unemployed persons, whether Greek Cypriot, Turkish Cypriot, or even the British element? Will Her Majesty's Government say to what extent funds would be available for this?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, not only the composition of such a delegation but also its inquiry should be as comprehensive and wide-ranging as possible. In regard to what we could do in my Department to assist such a delegation, we shall certainly, as always, place every possible facility at their service, as we are now doing for two Members of another place who are to go on a visit of inquiry to Cyprus and who are being assisted by my Department and by the High Commission. As to funds, I know of no precedent whereby, Departmentally, I could help in this regard, and I am afraid that, even if there were a precedent, we do not have any money at the moment.
The Earl of BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the European Parliament is also considering sending a delegation to Cyprus? Does he not think that, despite the fact that the Party opposite is not so far represented in the European Parliament, it might be preferable to send one from that Assembly?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it could very well be so when the time comes. The noble Earl knows that the Council of Europe has sent a delegation to Cyprus, with very useful results.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that some of us, while welcoming the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, that we should send an all-Party delegation to Cyprus, believe that the situation in Cyprus is so grave that what we need is a meeting of Turkey, Greece, ourselves, the United States and the Soviet Union to bring peace to the tortured island which is suffering so much quite undeservedly?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House would agree with the fundamental proposition made by my noble friend.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, while welcoming the Minister's favourable response to the suggestion that there should be a Parliamentary delegation, which I believe might be of value at this moment, may I ask him whether the Government recognise that as the third guarantor Government of the Constitution they have a special responsibility to play a leading, and perhaps rather more active, part in bringing the two sides together?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that we showed last summer how ready we were to play a fore-most part in bringing the parties together. It certainly was not the fault of my right honourable friend that those very promising talks in Geneva failed. We stand ready still to intervene to help in every possible way, subject only to the premise that the people of Cyprus, as represented by the various parties, are agreeable to a course of action and to a solution that we can usefully promote.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that very often the intervention and the diplomacy of one party in bringing two other parties together is more successful than these large international conferences, which often come to nothing?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is for consideration. It can be in certain connections, and the noble Lord has experience of these matters. In other regards and in other contexts, sometimes it is advisable that there should be a more comprehensive meeting. At the moment I cannot say what our conclusions are regarding the Cyprus question, but

483
certainly the options which the noble Lord has posed are in our minds.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, while agreeing that the possibility of a delegation visiting Cyprus at present may be useful, may I ask my noble friend whether he will also remember that our troops were in Cyprus for so long trying to achieve the very objective now under discussion? Those of us who have been to Cyprus, and who saw what our young boys had to do in jeeps and small military vehicles, at the same time drinking coffee with the Greek or Turkish Cypriots in the villages, realise how difficult it is for us to step in at this juncture. This problem must be worked out by the Cypriots themselves. We have lost too many lives already in Cyprus.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is a great deal of truth in what my noble friend Lord Popplewell says. I know that the whole House will agree that the deportment and performance of our troops in Cyprus was always such as to command admiration and respect.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, does the noble Lord know whether any progress has been made in the context of the D'Avignon procedure to try to achieve a common policy between the Nine Members of the EEC regarding Cyprus?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I cannot give details of international exchanges, but naturally we are in constant consultation with our friends, including the Nine, and, indeed, with members of NATO.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, would my noble friend also agree that of all the purposes which we must bear in mind the immediate need is that the discussions, under the chairmanship of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in Vienna later this month, must be started in the best possible atmosphere? Will the United Kingdom Government do their utmost to ensure that no preconditions are imposed which prevent the satisfactory beginning of these important discussions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can give that assurance.

FOREIGN STATES: INTERVENTION POLICY
3.22 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will indicate what criteria are used in determining whether to intervene in the internal affairs of foreign States.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to intervene in the internal affairs of any foreign State.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, arising from that reply, may I ask the Minister whether he agrees that while the mission recently sent to South Africa was disclaimed by the Government as having any official character, unavoidably in South Africa it was regarded as being official? Is it now contemplated that that inquiry is likely to be repeated in any other countries where, by general consent, industrial earnings are well-known to be on the low side?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the recent inquiry into conditions in Southern Africa. This was not in the form of an intervention. Perhaps we might differentiate between "intervention" and "representation". I freely agree that in regard to specific cases we do make representations, particularly about the persecution of minorities and individuals. But that is not the same as intervening, and I do not think that the kind of procedure which the noble Lord has described could fairly be described as "intervention".
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is it not inevitable that it would be regarded in the country concerned as being encouraged by the Government? What I am asking is whether it is contemplated that any encouragement will be given to having a similar inquiry in other countries.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think I had better undertake to study carefully the report of the noble

485
Lord's words when they appear impeccably in Hansard tomorrow morning.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, is this not a question of double standards, and where the Minister's Party is faithful to the political Party in power in certain countries they do not institute inquiries into the conditions there, such as they might institute in South Africa, or perhaps in other countries with whose policies the Government do not agree? Is that not a question of double standards?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think so. What the Select Committee did was to investigate very fairly the conduct and practice of British firms in Southern Africa. A report was produced which in some instances was critical, and in many other instances was favourable. I do not think we can regard that procedure as being an example of double standards, still less of undue intervention in another country.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that those who are guilty of double standards are those who ask questions like those to which we have listened this afternoon? They are always loud in their demands that we should condemn—and quite rightly—people coming from the Eastern bloc, like Mr. Shelepin, but have nothing to say about the victims of apartheid who suffer in Southern Africa.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, all this is part of the interesting difficulty of this Question. Perhaps the noble Lord, to whom I assume that question was addressed, will take his own way of answering the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that circulars have been sent out to all firms associated with South African companies requesting details of conditions of pay and rewards of people employed in South Africa? If i there is no double standard, could he say in what other countries similar inquiries have been made about employment conditions associated with British firms such as behind the Iron Curtain or in any other countries where protection of rights exist?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord may recall that
486
two or three weeks ago I asked whether we might consider a similar inquiry regarding the conditions in tea plantations in Sri Lanka. The reply was that we could consider this matter and that it would be for Parliament, through the Select Committee procedure, so to move. There is that possibility and there may be other possibilities in the future.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that we have in this country a responsibility for the behaviour of British firms anywhere in the world?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I do agree. I believe there is a general consensus that while we should take care to encourage those who are acting to reach quite high standards, we should try to do our best to discourage others from falling below such standards and encourage them to emulate those who do better.

OIL TAXATION BILL
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will inform the House what consultations were held with Mr. Jenkin on the Oil Taxation Bill, what alterations were made as a result and what consultations were made with industrialists concerned with oil production.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Balogh): My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will grant me indulgence for a rather lengthy reply in answer to the noble Baroness. The most important changes in the Oil Taxation Bill were made by the Government to implement the Statement by my right honourable friend the Paymaster-General, on Second Reading of the Bill in another place, that relaxations to ensure production from marginal fields would be introduced in the light of the detailed consultations which had just begun with the oil companies. Other changes—for example, the exemption of gas sold to BGC under contracts made

487
by the end of June 1975, and the allowance of initial treatment and storage costs —were also made in the light of those very extensive consultations and debates in another place. Some of them I have already mentioned in my speech on Second Reading.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that answer? Also, may I ask him whether he will accept from me my appreciative thanks for the very charming letter he sent me over my inability to be called last week, particularly in view of the fact that he said he was unable to see me owing to my being obliterated by the distinguished and noble Lord, Lord Robbins? May I say that I very much appreciated that letter? May I also ask the noble Lord whether he will bear in mind that I did not think his reply to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy was a very good one? I preferred my noble friend's speech rather than that of the noble Lord opposite.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I confess that I am not very astonished by that supplementary question from the noble Baroness.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, whether or not "consultations" is an apt description, may I ask the noble Lord to agree that the Government have improved, indeed transformed, their Oil Taxation Bill by the introduction on Report in another place of most of the changes which were advocated at earlier stages of the Bill by my right honourable friend Mr. Patrick Jenkin and his colleagues, and is it not a pity that it was apparently too late for all the changes they recommended to be adopted?
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord feels that a Second Reading debate should now take place at Question Time, but I would point out to him once more that he is entirely wrong in thinking that his right honourable friend's scheme would have done good service. We found that it was impossible to administer, and therefore I must again assert, because I do not have time for anything more, that the Bill as before us now for Third Reading, which will occur shortly, is in fact an excess profits tax measure.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Export Guarantees Acts 1968 to 1975.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la — (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

RAILWAYS (TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) BILL [H.L.]
Lord SOMERS: I beg leave to introduce a Bill to provide for arrangements to regularise the transfer of parts of the British Railways Board's undertaking to new bodies interested in continuing to operate certain services; to allow the independent assessment of the sums of money to be paid to the Board by potential new operating authorities; to repeal section 28 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1868; and for purposes connected therewith.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.— (Lord Somers.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

STANDING ORDERS (PRIVATE BUSINESS)
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, there are eight Amendments to Private Business Standing Orders set out on the Marshalled List. These are all technical Amendments and, with the leave of the House, I beg to move them en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Standing Order 4A
Line 4, after "Edinburgh" insert "and if it affects Northern Ireland at an office in Belfast".
Standing Order 27
Line 39, after "mile" insert "or of 1/50,000".
Standing Order 39
Leave out section (1) and insert the following new section:
"(1) of every Bill shall be deposited as follows: three at the Department of the Environment and at the Home Office, two at the Department of Health and Social Security

489
and the Department of Trade and one at the Treasury, the Department of Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Civil Service Department, the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Employment, the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, the Department of Energy, the Office of the Crown Estate Commissioners and the Office of (he Duchly of Lancaster; "
Line 34, at end insert "(10B) of every Bill extending to Northern Ireland at the Northern Ireland Office in Great George Street."
Standing Order 94B
Insert the following new Standing Order 94B:
"References in any Standing Order to the Chairman of Committees shall be construed as including references to the Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees and to any Lord named by the House as a Deputy Chairman of Committees acting on behalf of the Chairman of Committees."
Standing Order 175
Line 26, leave out "and" and after "Treasury" insert "and with the Department of the Environment".
Standing Order 201A
Leave out Standing Orders 101(2), 184(2), 213 and 216(3), (4) and (5) and for Standing Order 201A substitute the following Standing Order:
"201A(l) This Order applies to—

(a) A Petition against a Private Bill other than a Petition required by Standing Order 101 to be deposited on or before the sixth day of February.

(b) A Petition against a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill.

(c) A Petition against a Hybrid Instrument to which Standing Order 216 applies.

d) Anything required to be done in either House under Part X of these Standing Orders.

(2) Where the last day allowed by these Standing Orders for the deposit of a Petition to which this Standing Order applies or for the doing of anything required to be done in either House by the said Part expires when Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during a long adjournment, then the last day so allowed shall be the first day on which the House sits for public business after the dissolution, prorogation or long adjournment:
Provided that, should the House be recalled in pursuance of Public Business Standing Order No. 16 or Proclamation a day on which the House sits pursuant to the recall shall be disregarded.
(3) The preceding provisions of this Order, except the proviso to paragraph (2) apply to the period of twenty-one days prescribed by section 3(1) of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1945 as amended by the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act 1965 for the deposit of Petitions against Special Procedure Orders.
Appendix A
Line 18, leave out "clerks" and insert "Officers ".—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
NORTHERN IRELAND ASSEMBLY DISQUALIFICATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTERS OF THE CROWN BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
OIL TAXATION BILL
Read 3a and passed.

RESERVOIRS BILL [H.L.]
3.34 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill [50] as first printed for the Commons.]
[Nos. 1 and 2]
Clause 20, page 20, line 14, leave out ("9 or")
Clause 20, page 20, line 18, after (" 8 ") insert (" or 9 ")
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2. Without these Amendments the Bill would not ensure that the enforcement authority receives a copy of the report which Clause 9 requires to be made by a qualified civil engineer on an abandoned reservoir which the undertaker planned to bring back into use.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 3]
Clause 21, page 21, line 40, after ("reservoir ") insert (", with their annexes (if any) ")
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. With your Lordships' permission, I will speak to Amendment No. 7 at the same time. These Amendments place it beyond doubt that where certificates specified in the legislation have annexes which include detailed drawings and descriptions, or other instructions, the certificates must be accompanied by their annexes.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 4–6]
Clause 22, page 22, line 17, leave out ("£100") and insert ("£250").
Clause 22, page 22, line 24, leave out ("£100") and insert ("£250").
Clause 22, page 22, line 31, leave out ("£400") and insert ("£800").
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 4, 5 and 6. These Amendments increase the fines for those offences under Clause 22 for which the undertakers may be liable only on summary conviction.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
No. 7]
Clause 24, page 24, line 3, at end insert (" (including the annex to the certificate) ").
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 8 and 9]
Clause 26, page 25, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("on") in line 33 and insert—
(" (1) Where the construction of a large raised reservoir (whether as a new reservoir or by the alteration of an existing reservoir that was not a lage raised reservoir) was completed before the commencement of the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930 and the reservoir was not inspected under that Act then unless section 25(1) or (5) above applies by reason of any alteration of the reservoir increasing its capacity, the first inspection of the reservoir under this Act shall be made as soon as practicable after the commencement of this Act.
(2) Where the construction of a large raised reservoir (whether as a new reservoir or by the alteration of an existing reservoir that was not a large raised reservoir) was completed before the commencement of the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930, then").
Clause 26, page 25, line 40, at end insert—
(" (3) Where subsection (2) above applies on the inspection of a reservoir, any reference in section 20 or section 21(5) above to an inspecting engineer's report shall include the annex, and section 20(4)(b) shall apply whether or not the report is stated in the inspecting engineer's certificate to include a recommendation as to measures to be taken in the interests of safety.")
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 8 and 9.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(Baroness Birk.)
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I should like to say a few words. I noticed that we were going quite quickly and that on the Order Paper the Bill was scheduled to take five minutes only. On behalf of my noble friend Baroness Young, of myself and of other members of your Lordships' House who have worked on the Bill, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for what she has done. From a lady's point of view, to be associated with the engineering world of reservoirs is a difficult task and, not being a member of the Engineers'

493
Institute, or an engineer myself, I fully understand the difficulty that she has experienced in understanding what the Engineers' Institute wanted. I thank her very much for the way she has treated the Bill.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.42 p.m.
Report of Amendments received.
Clause 1 [The valuation roll and revaluation]:
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Hughes): My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, which is purely a drafting amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("section 2 and section 5") and insert (" and section 2").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Provisions supplementary to sections 1 and 2]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 5, line 18, leave out from ("on") to end of line 20 and insert ("the ground that there has been a material change of circumstances since the entry was made or that there is such an error in the entry as is referred to in section 2(1)(f) of this Act; and, not-withstanding the definition of "material change of circumstances" as set out in section 34(1) of this Act, if in an appeal under this subsection on the ground of a material change of circumstances it is proved that there has been a change of circumstances which has materially reduced the extent to which beneficial occupation of the lands and heritages can be enjoyed, the appeal shall not be refused by reason only that the change of circumstances has not been proved to have affected the value of the lands and heritages to any specific extent.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the effect of this Amendment will be to permit an appeal on grounds of "material change of circumstances" to be entertained in the absence of rental evidence, provided that the applicant can show that a disamenity or nuisance has significantly affected his enjoyment of the property. If rental evidence is produced, whether in support of the applicant or against him, it will, of course, fall to be considered
494
with the other non-rental evidence. Criticism of the law as it stands has come from another place, from the courts and from the Scottish Valuation Advisory Council, two of whose members have assisted in drafting the Amendment which is now before the House. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we agree that this is an improvement and we have no objection to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Valuation appeal committees]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5. line 39, after ("the") insert ("maximum and minimum ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6, 22 and 29 are consequential to this Amendment. These Amendments are designed generally to ensure that the Order-making powers in Clause 4(3)(b) are wide enough to allow the model scheme to make provision for any matter which, following consultation with interested bodies such as the Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals, the Secretary of State may wish to cover. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 4, 5, and 6 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 5, leave out line 40 and insert ("and the termination of their appointment").
Page 6, line 4, leave out paragraph (c).
Page 6, line 12, at end insert—
("f) any other matter as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of the administration of the model scheme in any valuation area.
(3A) The remuneration and allowances to be paid to the secretary and any assistant secretary of the panel and their conditions of employment shall be such as may be agreed between the valuation authority and the sheriff or, failing agreement, as may be determined by the Secretary of State.
(3B) All expenses incurred by a local valuation panel or a valuation appeal committee shall be defrayed by the valuation authority.") —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 10 [Collection of rates by housing body on behalf of rating authority]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 12, line 30, at end insert—
("(1A) Where a rating authority wish to make arrangements with a housing body under subsection (1) above but the housing body have not agreed to enter into the arrangements, the Secretary of State may by order, made after consultation with the rating authority and the housing body, provide that the rating authority and the housing body shall make such arrangements in accordance with that subsection.
(1B) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1A) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that, if necessary, a housing body—that is, a district authority, a New Town corporation or the Scottish Special Housing Association—can be required to collect rates as an agent of the rating authority. As it stands, the clause will allow rating authorities to make arrangements for the collection of rates along with rent on their behalf by housing bodies within their area who are willing to undertake the task. While there is little doubt that most housing bodies will be prepared to enter into such arrangements, it is not certain that all will be willing to do so. It would be going too far to make it mandatory in every case that the housing body should collect the rates. This could be inflexible and not necessarily the best way of proceeding in the local circumstances. But, where the rating authority has asked for such arrangements and has met with no response, it seems reasonable that the Secretary of State should be able to come in and, after consulting both parties, resolve the issue by a statutory Order.
The Secretary of State's Order would be subject, under subsection (1B), to annulment by either House. I emphasise that the Government agree with the view which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, expressed at an earlier stage about the desirability of making it perfectly clear what was the amount of rent and rates and I expect that every housing body would so operate, particularly those which were cooperating in the scheme after being a little unwilling in the first instance. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I agree that it is for the convenience of ratepayers and tenants that there should if possible be one collection rather than two. I also agree that it is worth while making this provision for the possibility of a housing authority and a rating authority disagreeing. It means that, unless the Secretary of State can act as an intermediary, he will have to direct one of the authorities. Secondly, I should like to make the point that, if he has to do so, it is very important that what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has just said about showing rates and rents separately should be insisted upon. Otherwise, it will be impossible for a tenant to know how much he is paying in rates and he will simply think it is all rent.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Borrowing and lending by local authorities and certain of their funds]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 15, line 12, after ("authorities") insert (" joint boards, water development boards and river purification boards ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 26 and 30 are consequential upon this Amendment. These Amendments to Clause 16, paragraphs 1 and 28 of Schedule 3 and Schedule 7 are all technical. Their purpose is to apply Schedule 3 to the peripheral bodies in the local government field —that is, the joint boards which have borrowing powers, water development boards and river purification boards and, secondly, to consolidate in this Schedule the sole surviving section of Part XII of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947; namely, Section 258, which sets out the purposes for which the money may be borrowed. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.50 p.m.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
Allowances for Members of Children's panels and Children's Panel Advisory Committees.
" . In Schedule 3 to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (children's panels), for

497
paragraph 8 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
" 8.—(1) A local authority may pay—

(a) to a member or possible member of the children's panel in respect of his attendance at a children's hearing or at training arranged under paragraph 6 or 7 of this Schedule;

(b) to a member of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee, who is not also a member of a body to which sections 45 and 46 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 apply, in respect of his attendance at a meeting of the Committee;

(c) to a member or possible member of the children's panel or to such a member of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee as aforesaid in respect of the doing by him of anything approved by the authority or anything of a class so approved, for the purpose of, or in connection with, the discharge of the functions of the panel or Committee, as the case may be;

allowances, in the nature of those payable under sections 45(4) and 46(1) of the said Act of 1973, being payments of such reasonable amounts as they may determine in any particular case or class of case and not exceeding the amounts prescribed under the said section 45(4) and specified under the said section 46(1) for the corresponding allowances under those provisions.

(2) A local authority may pay to a member of the Children's Panel Advisory Committee who is also a member of a body to which sections 45 and 46 of the said Act of 1973 apply—

(a) in respect of his attendance at a meeting of the Committee;

(b) in respect of the doing by him of anything approved by the authority, or anything of a class so approved, for the purpose of, or in connection with, the discharge of the functions of the Committee;

allowances, in the nature of those payable under the said section 45 and subsection (1) of the said section 46, being payments of such reasonable amounts as they may determine in any particular case or class of case and not exceeding the amounts prescribed under the said section 45 and specified under subsection (1) of the said section 46 for the corresponding allowances under those provisions."."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment continues the present arrangements so far as non-councillor members of Childrens' Panel Advisory Committees and members and possible members of childrens' panels are concerned. The main purpose of the Amendment is to enable local authorities to pay to councillor members of Childrens' Panel Advisory Committees the same attendance allowances as are payable
498
under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 10.
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause:
Transference of social workers of Health Boards to local authority employment
.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the transfer to the employment of local authorities of persons of descriptions specified in the order who are for the time being employed in social work by Health Boards; and the order may include provision—

(a) for transfers in pursuance of the order to be made on such days as may be deter mined by or under the order; and

(b) as to the manner of determining whether an individual is a person liable to be transferred by virtue of this subsection and which authority is the authority to whose employment such a person is to be transferred.

(2) A person transferred by virtue of sub section (1) above to (he employment of a local authority shall not be required in the course of that employment to perform duties otherwise than at or in connection with a hospital or other health service establishment unless he has consented to perform such duties.
(3)It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State by order to make provision for securing, in the case of a person transferred to the employment of a local authority by virtue of subsection (1) above—

(a) that, while he is in the employment of that authority and has not been served with a notice in writing stating that it is served for the purposes of this subsection and specifying such new terms and conditions of employment as are mentioned in paragraph (b) below, the scale of his remuneration and, taken as a whole, the other terms and conditions of his employment by that authority are not less favourable to him than were immediately before the transfer those of the employment by the Health Board;

(b) that any new terms and conditions determined by that authority for his employment by them are such that—

(i) so long as he is engaged in duties reasonably comparable to the duties in which immediately before the transfer he was engaged in the employment by the Health Board, the scale of his remuneration and, taken as a whole, the other terms and conditions of his employment by that authority are not less favourable to him than were, immediately before the transfer, those of the employment by the Health Board, and

(ii) so long as he is engaged in duties not so comparable, the terms and conditions of his employment by that authority (excluding terms as to remuneration) are,

499
taken as a whole, not less favourable than as mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) above;

(c) that for the purposes of any enactment specified in the order the employments from which and to which he was transferred by virtue of subsection (1) above are treated as one continuous employment;

and an order made in pursuance of this subsection may contain provision for the determination of questions arising with respect to the effect in relation to any person of provision made by virtue of paragraphs (a) to (c) above.

(4) A statutory instrument containing any order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the clause is to provide for the transfer of the social workers from the employment of Health Boards to the employment of local authorities at such date as the Secretary of State may determine. It is, in fact, intended to effect the transfer on 16th May 1975. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this is an important new clause which appeared only yesterday, and it will affect employment and conditions of service. I can foresee that the way in which the clause is implemented could raise questions where employees felt either that the transfer was against their wishes or that the conditions were less favourable than they enjoyed as employees of a Health Board. I therefore ask the Minister whether he can tell us why this is being introduced at this very late stage; and, secondly, whether he can confirm that the Statutory Instrument which is provided for at the end of the clause is one which will permit those in another place to pray against the Secretary of State's Order in due course? I ask that because it could well be that this matter could cause concern to constituents of Members of another place, raising questions involving their employment if it seems that they are being moved arbitrarily from one employer to another.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I can confirm that the orders will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and therefore, as the noble Lord asked, they can be prayed against. The need for this provision arises from the Government's decision that social work in hospitals and other Health Service establishments should come under the administra
500
tive control of local authorities at the same time as local government reorganisation. Social work services in hospitals are at present provided by the Health Boards independently of the main social work provision by the local authority for the area. The general objective is to integrate hospital social work services with the larger local authority service as a means of ensuring the best development of social work for clients in health settings. In becoming part of the main local authority social work structure, hospital social work will benefit from the services, advice and supervision that are available in local authority social work departments and that have evolved and developed since the integration of local authority social work services under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. The change will also offer scope for better career patterns for the social workers concerned. The corresponding provision in England and Wales for a similar transfer at 1st April 1974 was contained in Sections 18(4) and (5) and 19(2) of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he tell us why this provision, which he has just explained so admirably for us, has appeared only at this very late stage?
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I cannot do that satisfactorily in Parliamentary terms. I think that when the draftsmen got down to the final details it became obvious that the existing powers were not completely satisfactory.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Borrowing and lending by local authorities and certain of their funds]:
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I have spoken to Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14, along with Amendment No. 8, and with permission I will move these Amendments en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 37, line 19, leave out paragraph 1 and insert—
(" 1.—(1) Without prejudice to section 69 of the Act of 1973 (subsidiary powers of local authorities), a local authority may borrow such

501
sums as may be required for any of the following purposes—

(a) for acquiring any land which the authority have power to acquire;

(b) for erecting any building which the authority have power to erect;

(c) for the execution of any permanent work or the provision of any plant or the doing of any other thing which the authority have power to execute, provide or do and which involves expenses of a capital nature or for the payment of any sum of a capital nature;

(d) for the purpose of lending to a relevant authority or to any community council established for the area of the local authority or any part thereof under Part IV of the Act of 1973;

(e) for any other purpose for which the authority are authorised under any enactment to borrow.

(2) A local authority may borrow such sums as are required to meet expenses, other than expenses to which sub-paragraph (1) above relates, which the authority have power to incur in the exercise of any of their functions (excluding functions relating to a public utility undertaking) where by reason of their nature they are satisfied that the expenses should be met by borrowing and repayment spread over a term of years.
(3) A local authority may borrow such sums as are necessary in order to provide working capital or to meet any other expenses, not being expenses of a capital nature, required for the purposes of any public utility undertaking carried on by the authority.
Provided that—

(a) the total sums borrowed under this sub-paragraph and for the time being out standing shall not, except with the consent of the Secretary of State, exceed an amount representing one half of the gross revenue of the undertaking for the immediately pre ceding financial year;

(b) any sum borrowed under this sub paragraph to defray expenses shall be repaid as soon as reasonably practicable and in any case before the expiration of the period within which money borrowed to meet such expenses is ordinarily repaid in the case of such an undertaking, so however that any sum borrowed under this sub-paragraph shallbe repaid before the expiration of two years from the date of borrowing, unless the consent of the Secretary of State is obtained to repayment thereof being spread over a longer period, and such consent may be given subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may determine.

(4) Sub-paragraphs (l)(a), (b) and (c) and (2) above shall apply to a water development board and to a river purification board as they apply to a local authority.
(5) In this paragraph "public utility undertaking" means a transport or other revenue-producing undertaking of a local authority.")
Page 45, line 36, at begining insert ("Subject to paragraph 1(4) above and sub-paragraph (2) below,".)
Page 45, line 37, at end insert (", a water [development board or a river purification I board.")
Page 45, line 38, at end insert—
(" (2) The Secretaray of State may by regulations make such provisions as seem to him necessary or expedient with respect to the application of the provisions of this Schedule to the aforesaid boards, either generally or to any particular board or class of board.
(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this paragraph shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Matters not subject to investigation]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 49, line 1, leave out from ("action") to ("concerning") in line 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15, and No. 16 goes with it. Schedule 5, paragraph 5, describes a category of actions in the education sphere which are excluded from the Commissioner's jurisdiction. As it stands it covers these actions only when they are taken by an education authority. The effect of the Amendments is to make the paragraph cover the same range of actions when they are taken by any of the authorities specified in Part II of the Bill; that is, for the present purpose, local authorities, education committees, joint committees of education authorities or any person or body which discharges the functions of an education authority—for example, school or college councils. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16 which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 6, leave out ("the authority") and insert ("an education authority")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 49, line 15, at end insert—
("1A. Any reference in the Valuation Acts or in any enactment having effect by virtue of those Acts to "year", however expressed, shall be construed as respects the year 1975–76 as a reference to a period commencing on 16th May 1975 and ending on 31st March 1976 and as respects any later year as a period of twelve months ending with 31st March.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to bring the definition of "year" in the Valuation Acts and in any subordinate legislation having effect under those Acts, into line with that of "financial year" in Section 96(5) of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 as amended by Clause 18 of the Bill. Perhaps I should indicate that it has been found necessary to have another Amendment on the same lines as this—a minor drafting Amendment— but there was not time to put it down at this stage, so I shall table it at Third Reading. I am sorry that this should be the position, and I do not expect to have any other Amendments at Third Reading, but I would not guarantee that.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving notice that another Amendment will be coming on Third Reading. While he is about it, could he again consider the question which the assessors are much concerned about—what they have described as the "as at" date?
A certain date would be stipulated in the timetable regulations which would help them. I think the noble Lord knows the point that I have in mind. If he is tabling Amendments at Third Reading, I hope he will consider this matter as well.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 18A:
Page 51, line 34, at end insert—
"14A. In section 2 (provisions as to liability for domestic water rate), at the end of subsection (1A) there shall be added the words ' or which are occupied by a water authority for the purposes of a water undertaking or by a water development board '."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in place of Amendment No. 18 I wish to
504
move a manuscript Amendment and I should perhaps explain the circumstances relating to this matter. Amendments Nos. 18 and 18A were tabled, because it was discovered that a few words had accidently been missed from the Amendment. Unfortunately, when the matter was being considered the wrong Amendment was withdrawn. Amendment No. 18 should have been withdrawn and Amendment No. 18A should have been left. What happened was that Amendment No. 18A was withdrawn and Amendment No. 18 was left, so the manuscript Amendment will now be in these terms:
Page 51, line 34, at end insert—
" 14A. In section 2 (provisions as to liability for domestic water rate), at the end of subsection (1A) there shall be added the words ' or which are occupied by a water authority for the purposes of a water undertaking or by a water development board'."
The difference between Amendment No. 18 and what I have now read is the inclusion of the words "for the purposes of a water undertaking". The Amendment provides that regional councils, and islands councils, as water authorities (or the Central Scotland Water Development Board, which is a combination of water authorities) will not be required to pay the domestic water rate on premises that they themselves occupy for their functions under the Water (Scotland) Acts. This is a matter of simplifying the administration and financial arrangements in this field. If I may simplify the position, it simply means that we ought not to go to the expense of transferring money from the right-hand pocket to the left-hand pocket of the same pair of trousers.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 51, leave out lines 39 to 46.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19, and to associate with it Amendments Nos. 20, 27 and 28. These Amendments are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 20 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 55. line 43, leave out paragraph 39 and insert—
("39. In section 12 (calculation of amount to be requisitioned by regional water boards),

505
in subsection (2)(b) for the words between "'relevant financial year'" and "authority, and" there shall be substituted the words "means, in the case of a requisition in respect of the financial year 1975–76, that year, and, in the case of a requisition in respect of any subsequent financial year the financial year in respect of which the requisition is made or, if the water authority and the contributing authority agree, the financial year of the contributing authority immediately preceding the year in respect of which the requisition is made on the ".")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 56, line 22, at end insert—
(" The Local Government (Footpaths and Open Spaces) (Scotland) Act 1970 (c. 28)
42A. In section 5 (interpretation), in the definition of ' local authority', for the words ' a town council or a county' there shall be substituted the words ', in sections 1 and 2, a regional or islands council, and in section 3, a regional, islands or district'.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21 and to associate with it Amendment No. 31. These Amendments correct an error in the definitions of "local authority" included in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 in relation to the Local Government (Footpaths and Open Spaces) Act 1970.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22 to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 30, leave out from (" 49 ") to and of line 33 and insert (" (application of sections 45 to 47 to certain bodies)—

(a) subsection (1)(b) shall cease to have effect;

(b) after subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection: —

"(1A) Sections 45 to 47 of this Act shall apply to any local valuation panel or valuation appeal committee but as if the payments referred to in those sections were made by the valuation authority.".") —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendments Nos. 23 and 24:
Page 57, line 33, after ("sections") insert (", other than subsection (1) of the said section 45,")
Page 57, line 36, at beginning insert (" subsection (4) of)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments No. 23 and No. 24 en bloc. These Amendments make a slight alteration to a previous Amendment made at Committee stage to correct an unintended result. The Committee stage Amendment removed any doubt about the power of an education authority to pay the out-of-pocket expenses and travelling and subsistence expenses of members of school and college councils. The form in which it was put however might make it possible for an authority to pay an attendance allowance also. This, of course, was never intended. The purpose of these Amendments therefore is to make it clear that an education authority can pay allowances to members of school and college councils only in the nature of the financial loss allowance and the travelling and subsistence allowance but not the attendance allowance—unless, of course, such a member is also an elected member of the authority.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 58, line 19, at end insert (" (a) for paragraph 1 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
'1.—(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act or any order made thereunder, any reference in any enactment, order, scheme, regulations, award or byelaws passed or made before the coming into force of this Act—

(a) in unspecified terms to a regional water board or the region of such a board (or any expression construed as such a reference by virtue of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Water (Scotland) Act 1967) or to a constituent board shall be construed respectively as a reference to a water authority or to the limits of supply of such an authority or to a constituent water authority;

(b) to a particular regional water board or the region of such a board (or any expression construed as aforesaid) shall be construed respectively as a reference to the water authority responsible for the water undertaking to which the enactment relates or to the limits of supply of such an authority.

(2) If there is any doubt as to the identity of the water authority referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(b) above, that authority shall be taken to be such authority as may be specified in a direction given by the Secretary of State.';
(b)")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid the possibility of uncertainty in the operation of local statutory provisions relating to

507
water supply after reorganisation of local government takes full effect on 16th May. It adds to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 a mechanism for identifying the particular water authority which will succeed a particular regional water board, for the purposes of a local statutory provision, if there is any doubt about which authority it should be. It is similar to the provision already contained in the 1973 Act, Section 215(4), for settling any doubt as to the identity of an authority to whom an agreement, consent, et cetera should be transferred. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 26 to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Paee 59, leave out line 39 and insert (" Part XII ")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 en bloc. I spoke to them when dealing with Amendment No. 9.
Amendments moved—
Page 59, line 44, at end insert—

(" 14 & 15 Geo. 6. c. 66.

The Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) (Scotland) Act 1951.

Section 7.")

Page 60, line 47, leave out ("Section 10") and insert (" Sections 10 and 17 ")—(Lord Hughes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 29 to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 7, after ("49(1)") insert (" (b) j and ")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 30 to which I spoke when dealing with Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 13, after ("8") insert ("13 to 15,")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 31. I spoke to this when dealing with Amendment No. 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 61, line 19, at end insert ("and the entry relating to the Local Government (Footpaths and Open Spaces) (Scotland) Act 1970") 15,"—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 32:
In the Title line 6, after ("authorities;") insert ("to make further provisions as respects social work;")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is required to extend the scope of the Bill to cover the two new clauses (Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 on the Marshalled List) dealing with social work matters; the one enabling local authorities to pay financial loss, travelling and subsistence allowances to members of children's panel advisory committees and members of children's panels; and the other empowering the Secretary of State to make an order transferring to local authority employment social work staff employed by Health Boards. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.6 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. Apart from three minor drafting Amendments all the Commons Amendments are consequential on the coming into operation of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1972, the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and the District Courts (Scotland) Act 1975.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Hughes.)
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, may I say a word before the voices are collected on the Motion? This is a consolidation measure which was considered by the Joint Select Committee. It is quite often necessary to amend a consolidation measure after it has left the Joint Committee. Sometimes the

509
Committee itself suggests that the draftsmen might like to consider a point at leisure; sometimes new legislation, as in this case, renders amendment necessary. We had an example earlier in the Session with the massive consolidation of the social security legislation which had to be amended because, parallel with it, there was legislation actually going through the House. But the subsequent Amendments which were necessary were cleared through my agency as Chairman of the Committee and I venture to suggest that that can be useful because the Committee may have some policy or may have expressed some views. I am not genuinely seeking work and I can well understand the view that no English lawyer has anything of any value to offer on a measure dealing with Scottish criminal procedure; but my noble and learned friend Lord Guest is a member of that Committee. He certainly played an active part in the discussions on the Bill in Committee, and I ask that consideration might be given, where subsequent Amendment is necessary to a consolidation Bill, for it to be cleared in some way through the Joint Committee.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his comments. Far be it from me as a total layman to object to the intervention of a noble and learned Lord in these matters, from whichever side of the Border he comes; for I am certain that he will know much more about it than I could hope to do. I hope, however, that the noble and learned Lord does not find it necessary to object to the handling of these Amendments today. I will certainly ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of my right honourable friend.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
[References are to Bill (85) as first printed for the Commons.]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1–56.]
Clause 13, page 5, line 14, leave out from ("sheriff") to ("alleging") in line 15 and insert ("or justice").
Clause 13, page 5, line 27, leave out (" magistrate ").
Clause 15, page 7, line 33, leave out (" magistrate ") and insert (" justice ").
Clause 16, page 7, line 39, leave out ("of the peace ").
Clause 16, page 8, leave out line 8.
Clause 19, page 9, line 16, leave out ("magistrate") and insert ("justice").
Clause 26, page 12, line 20, leave out (" magistrate ") and insert (" justice ").
Clause 26, page 12, line 21, leave out (" magistrate ") and insert ("justice").
Clause 26, page 12, line 27, leave out ("other magistrate") and insert ("justice").
Clause 99, page 31, line 32, leave out ("at sittings of the High Court").
Clause 99, page 31, line 34, after (" section ") insert ("at a sitting of the High Court").
Clause 151, page 50, line 8, leave out ("magistrate") and insert ("justice").
Clause 164, page 54, line 19, leave out ("Glasgow") and insert ("Strathclyde").
Clause 164, page 55, line 4, leave out ("Glasgow") and insert ("Strathclyde").
Clause 175, page 60, line 6, leave out (" health ").
Clause 175, page 60, line 7, leave out (" health ").
Clause 175, page 60, line 32, leave out (" health ").
Clause 176, page 61, line 10, leave out (" Regional Hospital") and insert (" Health Board ").
Clause 178, page 62, line 22, leave out ("Regional Hospital") and insert ("Health").
Clause 196, page 75, line 32, leave out ("or magistrate ").
Clause 196, page 75, line 38, leave out ("or magistrate ").
Clause 224, page 84, line 42, leave out ("of the peace").
Clause 224, page 85, line 4, leave out from ("law") to end of line 6.
Clause 284, page 105, line 15, leave out from ("the") to end of line 16 and insert (" district court").
Clause 284, page 105, line 18, leave out ("within their respective jurisdictions").
Clause 284, page 105, line 22, leave out ("£50") and insert ("£100").
Clause 284, page 105, line 26, leave out (" procurator fiscal or burgh).
Clause 315, page 123, line 33, leave out ("procurator fiscal or burgh").
Clause 315, page 105, line 34, leave out (" procurator fiscal or burgh ").
Clause 322, page 126, line 31, leave out ("magistrate or justice of the peace") and insert ("or justice").
Clause 322, page 126, line 44, leave out (" magistrate ").
Clause 324, page 128, line 34, leave out ("of the peace") leave out line 43.
Clause 327, page 129, line 41, leave out ("magistrate") and insert ("justice").
Clause 344, page 138, line 22, leave out ("procurator fiscal or burgh").
Clause 352, page 140, line 25, leave out ("the magistrate examiner") and insert ("a justice ").
Clause 358, page 143, line 36, leave out ("Glasgow") and insert ("Strathclyde").
Clause 358, page 144, line 22, leave out ("Glasgow") and insert (" Strathclyde").
Clause 376, page 151, line 38, leave out ("health").
Clause 376, page 151, line 39, leave out ("health").
Clause 376, page 152, line 38, leave out ("health").
Clause 377, page 153, line 16,, leave out ("Regional Hospital") and insert ("Health Board").
Clause 379, page 154, line 26, leave out ("Regional Hospital") and insert ("Health").
Clause 402, page 171, line 26, leave out ("magistrate") and insert ("district court"),
Clause 402, page 171, line 33, leave out ("magistrate") and insert ("justice").
Clause 462, page 198, line 14, leave out from first ("court") to end of line 16, and insert ("and district court").
Clause 462, page 199, line 23, leave out from ("sheriff") to end of line 25 and insert ("or any judge of a district court").
Clause 462, page 199, line 26, leave out from ("any") to end of line 28 and insert ("stipendiary magistrate or justice of the peace ").
Clause 462, page 199, line 30, leave out from ("peace") to end of line 32 and insert ("for any commission area in Scotland acting within such commission area").
Clause 462, page 199, leave out lines 37 and 38.
Clause 462, page 200, leave out line 42 and insert ("district prosecutor, depute district prosecutor, assistant district prosecutor, and").
Clause 464, page 204, line 20, leave out from ("operation") to end of line 21 and insert ("on 16th May 1975").
Clause 464, page 200, line 30, leave out subsection (6).
Schedule 5, page 212, line 4, leave out from ("court") to end of line 7 and insert (" or district court according to whether the probation order was made by a sheriff court or district court: ").
Schedule 5, page 212, line 9, leave out from ("no") to ("exercising") in line 10 and insert (" district court").
Schedule 9, page 217, leave out lines 40 to 44 and insert—
("In section 111(4), after the words "Part V of this Act "there shall be inserted the words "or under section 174, 175, 178, 375, 376 or 379 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 ", and after the words "the said Part V" there shall be inserted the words "or any of the provisions of the said sections ".").
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the
512
House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 56 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.— (Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 3 [Approval of adoption societies]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 6:
Page 2, line 21, after ("society") insert ("or, if it is already an adaption society, desiring to continue to act as such ")
Page 2, line 29, after (" make ") insert (" or, if the applicant is an approved adoption society, is making ")
Page 2, line 29, leave out 31 and insert ("which shall be operative from a date specified in the notice or, in the case of a renewal of approval, from the date of the notice.")
Page 3, line 7, at end insert—
(" (5A) If after considering the application the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the applicant is likely to make or, as the case may be, is making an effective contribution to the Adoption Service, the Secretary of State shall, subject to section (Procedure on refusal to approve or withdrawal of approval from societies) (1) and (2), by notice inform the applicant that his application is refused.")
Page 3, line 10, leave out from ("and") to ("shall") in line 11
Page 3, line 11, at end insert ("or, in the case of an approved adoption society whose further application for approval is pending at that time but is subsequently refused, shall expire on the date the notice is served on the society under subsection (5A).")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your permission, may I first of all say I am sorry that there are so many Amendments put down on Third Reading, but this is because we have made a sincere and sustained effort to meet the wishes of noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have raised what seemed to us on reflection very pertinent matters that were worthy of consideration, if I may so put it, and that efforts should be

513
made to try to accommodate them if at all possible. This is what we have done. It will be possible to move a substantial number of these Amendments en bloc. Naturally noble Lords will be able to exercise their right to intervene on any Amendment if they wish to do so. Therefore, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 6. These Amendments all relate to the undertaking given to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, during Committee stage that the Government would look at her suggestion that rules should require the Secretary of State to give reasons in writing when withdrawing approval from an adoption society.
In order to meet the suggestions of the noble Baroness more completely, we have amended the Bill itself, and extended the requirement to cover refusal to approve as well as withdrawal of approval. The Amendments provide that when the Secretary of State decides to refuse approval to or withdraw approval from a society, he shall serve notice on the society setting out his reasons. The society is then allowed 28 days to make representations to the Secretary of State before the final decision is given. I hope the noble Baroness will feel that we have met her "pressed down to overflowing" on this matter. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to say how grateful I am to the Government, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in particular, for meeting this point. It was one which had been raised by a number of voluntary societies: there was some concern that should they be refused recognition by the Secretary of State as an approved adoption society they should have the right to know the reasons. I am most grateful that the Bill has been amended in this way to meet this point. May I not only thank the noble Lord for the Amendment, but say that I think this is a most useful way to deal with this matter on Third Reading and to take the Amendments grouped in this way.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 12, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7. It would
514
be for the convenience of your Lordships if I indicated that Amendments Nos. 10, 38, 39, 77, and 82 all deal with the same subject and are consequential. This group of Amendments relates to provisions in the Bill as drafted dealing with the approval of voluntary adoption agencies in Scotland. Your Lordships will know that the proposal to have separate provisions for the approval of these agencies in Scotland has been under reconsideration by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It has been evident, both from the tabling of Amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, at earlier stages of the Bill, and from representations received by the Secretary of State from the interests directly concerned in Scotland, that there was a strong feeling that Scottish agencies should be registered by the central Government in the same way as their counterparts elsewhere in Great Britain. I will refer again in a moment to the helpful and understanding contribution over this whole matter by the noble Baroness.
In Scottish terms, this has been very much a question of reconciling the recommendation for central registration by the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children, which commanded general support among adoption interests in the voluntary sector, with the framework of local authority responsibilities in the social work sphere as laid down by the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. These responsibilities include the registration of voluntary homes provided for the purposes of the Act, and there would have been a strong measure of consistency in coupling this with the same responsibility in relation to adoption agencies, one of which in fact operates a home which is registered by the local authority. The Bill's provisions, like the 1968 Act, included a clause allowing for approvals to be sought from the Secretary of State instead of the local authority, thus imparting a fair measure of flexibility into the system.
However, we accept as entirely reasonable the wishes of adoption societies in Scotland to be treated in the same way as their sister organisations in England and Wales, and I am pleased to be able to move Amendments to the Bill which together produce this effect. May I in doing so say that the Secretary of State

515
is in no way doubtful of the competence or ability of local authorities in Scotland to carry out the tasks of approval of societies which the Bill as drafted assigned to them. We hope that the relationship between the voluntary agencies and local authorities will be close and fruitful, and that each will act as a stimulus to the other in the matter of thinking and practice.
Finally, may I pay a much deserved tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, whose persistence in pursuing the points to which I have referred has been another potent stimulus! I am sure we all admire her dogged championing of this cause and her graceful withdrawal of her Amendments on receiving the assurances which I was able to give her last week. When the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, had the strong support of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I was glad indeed that I found myself in the position of being able, at the last stage, to agree with them. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, very much indeed for his speech, and also for the fact that he has met our requests in full for the voluntary adoption societies in Scotland. I can assure him this is most acceptable to all of them, and is very acceptable to myself because I have certainly pursued him relentlessly at every stage of the Bill. I did not expect to win, and now that I have I am absolutely delighted and extremely grateful. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has very great understanding and sympathy for all those working in Scotland and for those working in close association with him in many fields, and in this one in particular. I should like to register the thanks of all the societies and myself for the way in which he has handled this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Withdrawal of approval]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
Page 3, line 16, after ("shall") insert ("subject to section (Procedure on refusal to approve, or withdrawal of approval from, societies) (3) and (4) ").
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Procedure on refusal to approve, or withdrawal of approval from, societiees.
(" .—(1) Before notifying a body which has applied for approval that the application is refused in accordance with section 3(5A) the Secretary of State shall serve on the applicant a notice—

(a) setting out the reasons why he proposes to refuse the application;

(b) informing the applicant that he may make representations in writing to the Secretary of State within 28 days of the date of service of the notice.

(2) If any representations are made by the applicant in accordance with subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall give further con sideration to the application taking into account those representations.
(3) The Secretary of State shall, before with drawing approval of an adoption society in accordance with section 4(1), serve on the society a notice—

(a) setting out the reasons why he pro poses to withdraw the approval; and

(b) informing the society that they may make representations in writing to the Secretary of State within 28 days of the date of service of the notice.

(4) If any representations are made by the society in accordance with subsection (3), the Secretary of State shall give further consideration to the withdrawal of approval under section 4(1) taking into account those representations.
(5) This section does not apply where the Secretary of State, after having considered any representations made by the applicant in accordance with this section, proposes to refuse approval or, as the case may be, to withdraw approval for reasons which have already been communicated to the applicant in a notice under this section.")
The noble Lord said: These Amendments relate to an undertaking which I gave to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, during the Committee stage, that the Government would look at the suggestion that the rules should require the Secretary of State to give reasons in writing when withdrawing approval from an adoption society. In order to meet the noble Baroness's suggestion more completely, we have amended the Bill itself and extended the requirement to cover refusal to approve as well as withdrawal of approval. The Amendments provide that when the Secretary of State decides to refuse approval to or withdraw approval from a society he shall serve notice on the society setting out his reasons. The society is then allowed 28 days to make representations to the Secretary of State before the final decision is given. My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, may I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and the Government for these Amendments. They entirely meet the point that we raised and we are very grateful. This shows how much better it is for the Government to draw up such Amendments, because a much better result is obtained than if others do it.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6 [Approval etc. of adoption societies in Scotland]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 10:
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10. This is the next one in the series of which I spoke in relation to Amendment No. 7. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Adoption orders]:
4.22 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 16, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(" (4) Schedule (Status conferred by adoption or legitimation) contains further provisions about the effect of adoption, and related or comparable provisions about legitimation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment introduces a new Schedule, which your Lordships will see printed as Amendment No. 78, to deal with the status of adopted persons and of legitimated persons. It is intended for the following purposes: first, to codify, with amendments, the law about the status and inheritance rights of adopted children; secondly, to codify the existing law about recognition of adoptions effected outside England and Wales; thirdly, to provide transitional provisions about the treatment, for status and property purposes, of adoptions effected in Great Britain before the commencement of the 1975 Act; fourthly, to provide a framework for the treatment of the rest of the Statute Book in relation to adoption, both in relation to pre-1975 and post-1975 Acts; fifthly, to make fresh provision for the property rights which flow from legitimation; and, finally, to make provision for the excep
518
tional case of a child who is both adopted and legitimated.
The Schedule is divided into four Parts. Part I deals with the interpretation of the Schedule. Part II deals with the status conferred on adoption and the property consequences of adoption. Part III deals with the property consequences of legitimation for all legitimated persons, including the child legitimated after adoption. Part IV is supplemental and deals, first, with the rationalisation of the various dispositions about relative seniority and kindred matters; secondly, the protection of trustees and personal representatives; and, thirdly, special provisions about special types of property which are settled with a Peerage or entailed. Part I and some paragraphs in Part II—that is, paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 and 9—apply to Scotland. The rest of the Schedule does not apply to Scotland but it may be that the Schedule will be amended in another place so as not to apply to Scotland and that a fresh, parallel Schedule, relating to Scotland only, will find its way into the Bill.
The package in the Schedule looks formidable, and I apologise to the House for inviting it on Third Reading to deal with such a substantial Amendment; but I assure your Lordships that it is not as bad as it looks, since the effect of the Schedule is simply to restate a number of provisions already in the Bill—in Clauses 7(4), 23 and 24—with some improvements. The most important of those improvements relates to legitimation, since it was thought essential to round off the important changes in family law that the Bill achieves by extending them to legitimation. I hope that when I have explained it, the House will agree that the proposed new Schedule 1 is a compendious and convenient way of dealing with a complex series of subjects.
Dealing first with the specific provisions relating to the status of adopted children, Clause 7(4) of the Bill as it now stands confers on an adopted child a new status as a child of the adopter or adopters, instead of his previous status as a child of his natural family. This is an innovation which has been generally welcomed in the House and elsewhere. It replaces the somewhat fragmented provisions in the Adoption Act 1958, which provide for certain purposes for a transfer of parental

519
rights and duties and for a new status for the purposes of property. The effect of Clause 7(4) is reproduced in paragraphs 2(1) and 2(2) of the proposed Schedule. Clause 7(6) and (7) specify two exceptions to the general rule that the adopted child has this new status as the child of the adopter or adopters. The exceptions relate to kindred and affinity for marriage purposes and to the law of incest, and these are reproduced in paragraph 7 of the Schedule.
Clause 23 of the Bill, which is replaced in paragraph 5 of the Schedule, provides new rules of construction regarding succession to property in adoption cases. The clause is a restatement of Section 16 of the Adoption Act 1958, with the modification suggested by the Houghton Committee at recommendation 83. The effect is to transfer an adopted child more fully than under the present law into his adoptive family for the purposes of property rights and this has been welcomed by your Lordships. Further provisions about property were made in Clause 24, and these are also transferred to the Schedule. Clause 24(1) and (2) appear at paragraph 15, and Clause 24(3) at paragraphs 9 and 16 of the Schedule. Thus far the Schedule does no more than reproduce in a new, and I hope clearer, form the provisions already approved by your Lordships' House. The advantage of taking all these provisions into the Schedule is that it enables further necessary provisions to be made about them.
Referring to existing and foreign adoptions, your Lordships will see that paragraph 1(2) of the Schedule defines adoption as including four classes of adoption orders. As it stands, the Bill covers only class (a) and it is necesary to cover class (b), which arc orders made under the current or previous adoption law in Great Britain. We must also include classes (c) and (d), so as to cover orders made elsewhere in the United Kingdom and orders made abroad which are recognised here under Section 4 of the Adoption Act 1968.
I turn next to the transitional provisions. Now that the new form of status conferred by adoption is to be given to those who have already been adopted in this country, transitional provisions will be necessary to cover such adoptions.
520
These appear in paragraphs 2(4) and (6). For those already adopted, the new status will be conferred with effect from 1st January 1975. I now turn to the provisions relating to the adoption of a child by one or both of his natural parents. As your Lordships will recall from our earlier discussions on the Bill, some adoptions are made on the application of one or both of the parents of the child. In 1970, for instance, 105 adoptions of children were single-parent adoptions. The Bill as it stands is not entirely clear as to the extent, if any, to which the adoption of a child by one parent or both parents is to affect the property rights of that child, particularly in relation to the adopting parent.
There is a risk that a child adopted by his own parent might be thought to have ceased to be a natural child of that parent and to rank as a child of that parent only from the date of the adoption. This could have adverse consequences in relation to paragraph 5(3) of the Schedule which assumes a notional rebirth on adoption. Paragraph 8 of the Schedule therefore avoids this and ensures that an illegitimate child adopted by one parent or both parents does not lose by the adoption. I am considering whether paragraph 8(2) is correctly limited to cases of illegitimacy.
I now turn to legitimation, with apologies to the House for the high technicality of this discourse. Your Lordships will see that Part III of the Schedule relates to legitimation. This is a totally fresh provision. Since the Bill improves the property rights of the adopted child it seems right to do likewise for the legitimated child also. At present, adopted and legitimated children have roughly comparable rights of succession in that they both in a sense have to start again on the adoption or legitimation. By this I mean that they are treated by the present law as adopted or legitimated only for instruments made after that date and not in respect of earlier instruments.
Take, for example, my Lords, an illegitimate child whose grandfather has died leaving property to his legitimate grand-children on attaining age 21. At the time of the death the child is still illegitimate but his parents then marry before he reaches age 21. As the law now stands the child will not qualify, because he was legitimated after the death of the testator.

521
Since the House has taken the view that an adopted child should be included within the ambit of instruments made before the adoption, it follows that the same sort of improvement in the legitimated person's right should also be made.
Paragraphs 10 and 11 deal with property rights following legitimation in almost exactly the same way as do paragraphs 4 and 5 which deal with property rights following adoption. I recommend this change to the House on its merits, since it will be a substantial improvement for legitimated persons and their wives and children, particularly in cases where the deed or will is so drafted that it does not cover illegitimate persons, whose rights of property under the Family Law Reform Act 1969 can be disapplied by the deed or will. A general change in the law of legitimation will be of particular benefit to the child who is adopted by one parent and then legitimated, since as the Bill now stands he would be unfairly treated.
Your Lordships may be interested to know that the change which the Government propose in paragraph 11 of the Schedule represents the existing law of England and Wales in relation to a person legitimated under a foreign law. In the leading case of Re Hurll in 1952 a legitimated child was able to benefit under an instrument made before legitimation, because she was happily able to show that her father was an Italian. She would not have inherited that property had her father been English, or for that matter Welsh. The consequence is that there will no longer be two régimes for property following legitimation, but all will be treated alike. Those legitimated here will be treated in future under our law as generously as those legitimated abroad.
The only other provision to which I need draw your Lordships' particular attention is paragraph 15, which provides protection for trustees and personal representatives who distribute property without notice of an adoption or of a potential legitimation. The paragraph reproduces Clauses 24(1) and (2) and extends the protection there conferred to cases of legitimation. This paragraph thus replaces the present protection conferred for adoption on trustees and others in Section
522
17(3) of the Adoption Act 1958 which can be repealed with effect from 1st January 1976. I have not described every provision in the Schedule—that would be encroaching too much on your Lordships' tolerance and patience—but I will do my best to answer any points that may be raised in the debate, if I am permitted to speak again at the end of it. My Lords, I beg to move.
4.36 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we are now looking at one of the most elephantine Amendments on Third Reading that most of us in the whole period of our membership of your Lordships' House can recall—certainly which I can recall. This sets an important precedent which is an unfortunate one. I would say to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that we warned the Government that this situation would arise if they insisted on a tight programme. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will recollect that I and my noble friend Lady Young made repeated requests for an altered programme for this Bill. Your Lordships will recollect that, too. The fourth day of Committee fell on 20th February and the first day of Report on 27th February, so there was a very short time indeed for your Lordships to be able to consider a large number of matters raised on Committee. We had no time to digest them and certainly the Government, due to the trap they set themselves, were quite unable to bring forward this very important Amendment on Report.
It would be churlish not to recognise the importance of this Amendment, and more churlish not to recognise the assistance given by the Department of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to the Opposition in respect of its interpretation. I acknowledge the assistance we have had. Nevertheless, this is a very important matter of law and we should surely recognise the fact that when your Lordships' House, as the deliberative Chamber, considers a Bill of this importance in future we should not, if at all possible, have only one week between stages. I will now return to the Amendment itself and to the Schedule.
We are considering here Clause 7 and adoption orders. May I first draw your

523
Lordships' attention to the fact that after 1926, when the Legitimacy Act reached the Statute Book, it was exactly one year before statistics on this subject came into being. In 1927, the first year after the Legitimacy Act reached the Statute Book, there were a grand total of 2,943 adoption orders, while in 1971, according to the Houghton Report, there were 23,399. The growth of these statistics is inevitable, but I would draw attention to the fact that the situation has progressed over a considerable period of years. This is the first time in, I believe, nearly 50 years that the four questions which are dealt with in the Schedule have been drawn together. I think that this is a matter of considerable importance, because it alters the law in relation to the legitimacy of those who were legitimated abroad and also in this country.
I should prefer to relate my remarks in specific detail to the later Amendment —that is, the Amendment to the Schedule itself—rather than to speak in great depth now on particular points, because it may perhaps be more fruitful and for the benefit of the House to do so. Nevertheless, we welcome this Amendment. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has referred to the question of a similar Schedule for Scotland, we hope that this will be introduced in another place. It is a matter of regret that your Lordships' House will not have the opportunity of reviewing a parallel situation before waving goodbye to the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, after the words of reproach that have so reasonably been addressed in not, I trust, my personal direction by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I feel that I ought to appear in sackcloth and ashes! As a Government, we felt that it was important that this measure should be introduced as soon as possible. It has been welcomed all round as an important piece of reform for the benefit of a group of children who are particularly in need of the protection of the community. That is what I offer by way of mitigation of the speed with which the matter has been pressed forward.
As to the size of the Schedule, there has been an attempt to pull together a large number of disparate provisions in the Bill. I think that for future pur
524
poses; namely, understanding of the matter in the courts and by adoption societies, what has been achieved may prove to be helpful. I am grateful, therefore, for the acceptance of the Schedule, in however critical terms.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This is merely making good an omission. A child is defined in the Bill as a person under 18 years of age. Since it is legally possible to marry at 16, this Amendment is necessary to restore the provisions of the existing law which have been repealed by the Bill; namely, that a child who is, or has been, married may not be adopted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, at end insert—
("' (4A) An adoption order may not be made in relation to child who is or has been married."—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am glad to see this small but important Amendment to the Bill. We drew the attention of the Government to this point at an earlier stage, and I am sure that it is quite right that this Amendment should be included in the Bill. None of us on this side of the House is very happy about the definition of a child as somebody under the age of 18. I have never quite understood why it was decided to remove the term "young persons", which seems to be much more appropriate and even manages to fit in with the Sex Discrimination Bill, rather than the word "child" which, as my noble friend Lord Elton pointed out, is the kind of thing which enormously upsets those who are aged between, say, 13 and 18 or 14 and 18. That said, we welcome this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13. It is consequential upon Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 32, leave out subsections (6), (7) and (8).—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert—
(" (8A) An adoption order may contain such terms and conditions as the court thinks fit.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment restores the substance of Section 7(3) of the Adoption Act 1958 which is repealed in Schedule 4 to the Bill. The provision will enable the court, on making an adoption order, to impose terms and conditions. In general, this power is used very sparingly, but to those trying these cases it has proved to be of value to the courts in exceptional cases.
The additional specific provision which is contained in Section 7(3) of the 1958 Act permitting the court to require the adopter to make financial provision for the adopted child by bond or otherwise, is no longer thought to be necessary and has not been retained, in view of the changes effected by the Bill to the inheritance rights of adopted children. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Child to live with adopters before order made]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert ("or in pursuance of an order of the High Court,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 15, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to speak to Amendments Nos. 36 and 37. I hope that they can be taken together. This group of Amendments will enable the High Court to retain its present wide jurisdiction in matters affecting the custody of a child by enabling it to order that the child shall be placed for adoption where this appears to be in the best interests of the child. Such cases are very rare—according to the Official Solicitor, about two in the last five years—but when the need to use it arises, the need is urgent. To delay further while either the cooperation of an adoption agency is invited or would-be adopters are served with their twelve months' notice might be to the child's detriment. The Amendment to Clause 8 would put applicants who have had a child placed with them following a High Court Order in the same position as applicants who are parents, stepparents, or relatives or those who have had a child placed with them by an adoption agency. Similarly, in Clause 29, which places res
526
trictions upon non-agency placements for adoption, placements made in pursuance of a High Court Order are included in the same category as adoptions by relatives; that is, placement of the child need not be made through an agency. I do not think there is any need for me to say more. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I support this Amendment which I am sure fills a gap which must be left in Clause 8. Clearly, it is a very desirable thing to do. The Amendment to Clause 8 gives me an opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his very long letter to me on the point that I have consistently raised on this clause, which I am not completely satisfied has been met; namely, the loophole here for private fosterings to lead to private adoptions. I appreciate the difficulties and I simply leave that on the Record as something which, if anything could be done about it in another place, I feel would be valuable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Parental agreement]:
4.50 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 7, line 30, at end insert—
(" (2A) Subsection (1) does not apply in any case where the child is not a United Kingdom national and the application for the adoption order is for a Convention adoption order.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. This Amendment makes it clear that the provisions of Clause 11(1), which relate to parental agreement to adoption, do not apply to applications for Convention adoption orders where the child involved is not a United Kingdom national. Such cases are covered by Clause 25(6) which provides that any consents required for adoption should be governed by the internal law of the Convention country of which the child is a national—and also if Amendment No. 30 is passed that the court is satisfied that each person who consents to the order in accordance with that internal law does so with full understanding of what is involved. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Need to notify local authority of adoption application]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 17 and 18:
Page 11, line 37, leave out from ("authority") to ("of") in line 38 and insert ("within whose area he has his home").
Page 11, line 40, leave out from ("of") to first ("the") in line 41 and insert ("such a notice").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I believe the only thing that it is necessary for me to say at this stage is that these Amendments remove some superfluous words from Clause 17. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 19 [Guardian ad litem and adoption officer]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 12, line 21, leave out ("other").
Page 12, line 23, at end insert—
("(1A) Rules may provide for the adoption officer to be appointed before the application is made.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 together. They refer to the same clause and for that reason it may be convenient for me to move them en bloc. The first is simply a drafting Amendment for Amendment No. 20, which provides that the adoption officer who will, when the Bill is enacted, be responsible for checking and witnessing parental agreement to adoption may be appointed before an adoption application is made. This will allow for the continuance of the present procedure under which a written agreement to adoption may be attached to the application form and, where appropriate, for essential inquiries to be made before the application is lodged. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we accept both these Amendments which clearly will be for the convenience of the courts concerned and will enable a better procedure to be adopted. We attach particular importance to Clause 19, the guardian ad litem clause, and we are very glad that the Government have chosen to bring in these Amendments at this stage.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 20 [Hearings of applications etc. in private]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 12, line 34, at end insert—
(" (4) In relation to Scotland, all proceedings before the court under this Part shall be heard and determined in camera unless the court otherwise directs.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment follows to put the position right so far as Scotland is concerned. I think at this stage one may say that we have capitulated under the pressure applied to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lords, Lord Sandys and Lord Wigoder.
The purpose of this Amendment is to insert in Clause 20 provisions dealing with the manner in which proceedings in Scottish courts in relation to the adoption of a child (including applications under Clause 13 for the freeing of a child for adoption) shall be heard and determined. The clause was introduced at Report stage and, as it now stands, deals only with adoption proceedings in courts in England and Wales. The requirement that adoption proceedings shall be held in camera unless the court otherwise directs is contained in court rules applying both to the Court of Session and the sheriff court. The present power to prescribe for this matter in rules is contained in Section 11(3) of the Adoption Act 1958, which is repealed by the Bill. The need for proceedings not to be held in open court in certain circumstances derives in part from the practice in cases where some opinion or ruling is made which is of importance for case law in the future. The discretion allowed to the court to hold proceedings in open court (subject to the normal restrictions in regard to reporting names of children) will be exactly as at present, and there is no reason to think that the courts will not continue to act in this matter with all due care. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I again thank the noble Lord for including this Amendment. I know that this matter gave some concern to the judiciary in Scotland and they will be very glad indeed that this subsection has been inserted.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Making of order]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24:
Page 12, line 39, leave out ("every parent or guardian of the child") and insert ("every person whose consent to the making of the order is required under this Act ").
Page 12, line 40, leave out ("the date and place of the hearing") and insert ("a date and place where he will be heard on the application ").
Page 12, line 42, leave out ("the hearing").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think Amendments Nos. 22, 23 and 24 could be moved en bloc. They maintain the present position regarding the anonymity of prospective adopters. As drafted, Clause 21(1) provides that rules shall require every parent or guardian of a child to be notified of the date and place of the adoption hearing and of the fact that, unless he wishes, or the court requires, he need not attend the hearing.
In cases where an applicant elects under the present adoption rules to remain anonymous by applying under a serial number, arrangements can be made to ensure that the prospective adopters and the parents who wish to be heard are heard separately. We do not intend to change the present practice and the Amendments provide that parents or guardians be informed of a date and place where they will be heard on the application, and not of the date and place of the adoption hearing itself. In this matter the court will write to parents or guardians. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 5, leave out ("for adoption").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment will bring clause 21 (3) into line with other clauses in the Bill which refer to placements by adoption agencies without specifying the purpose of the placement, namely, Clauses 8(l)(b) and 17(1). To leave the words "for adoption "would unduly restrict the intention of the clause which was to ensure that in every case where an adoption application was made on behalf of a child who had been placed with the applicants, whether for adoption or foster care, the agency responsible for the placement should be required to submit a report to the court.
530
The Amendment, I believe, achieves this purpose. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 13, leave out lines 24 and 25.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to adjust the Scottish application of Clause 21 contained in paragraph (a) of subsection (6), to reflect changes in the first part of the clause made by the preceding Amendments, Nos. 23 and 24. This application means that the words "the hearing" in the clause as it stands shall mean "any hearing" when applied to Scotland, thus allowing for the fact that there may not be a hearing at all. The earlier part of the clause as now amended makes reference to "any hearing" rather than to "the hearing". The point covered by paragraph (a) is thus made in a different way, and the words deleted by the present Amendment in any case are meaningless in their new context. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 27 and 28:
Clause 23 [Rules of construction regarding succession to property]:
Leave out Clause 23.
Clause 24 [Further provisions relating to property]:
Leave out Clause 24.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. These clauses are replaced with minor Amendments in Schedule 1 agreed to earlier in the debate on Amendment No. 11, dealt with by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Clause 23 becomes paragraph (5), for the interpretation of which some of paragraph (1) is required. Clause 24(1) and (2) becomes paragraph 16, Clause 24(3) becomes paragraphs 10 and 17. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, these Amendments relate to what was said earlier by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. They will be picked up when we come to Amendment No. 78. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I pointed out certain

531
problems which relate to the numbering of paragraphs in that Amendment, but not at this stage.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 25 [Convention adoption orders]:
5.4 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31.
Page 15, line 35, leave out ("must be made ") and insert ("shall not be made—

(a) except")

line 38, at end insert ("and—

(b) unless the court is satisfied that each person who consents to the order in accordance with that internal law does so with full understanding of what is involved.")

Page 16, line 20, after ("10") insert ("(1)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your permission I should like to take Amendments Nos. 29, 30 and 31 together. We are trying to implement the Adoption Act of 1968 by paving the way for ratification. Clause 25(6) at present requires that if a Convention adoption order is to be made in respect of a child who is a national not of the United Kingdom but of another Convention country, the law of that country relating to consents must be applied. The first two Amendments provide the extra requirement that a court must satisfy itself that people whose consent is required to a Convention order made in Great Britain—and such an order would be made in the High Court—who are likely to be in another country, have understood the meaning and effect of such an order. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not, in any way, wish to question the Amendments, which seem to improve Clause 25. We did not at any stage in the Bill discuss in any great detail Convention adoption orders. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can answer one question that I should like to raise about them. My Lords, I am quite certain we are all hoping that the Convention will be ratified. We should do everything we can to speed on its progress as rapidly as we can. Although it probably would not apply to the situation governing the Vietnamese children that we have heard so much about in the last week, it is the kind of situation which all of us con
532
cerned with this Bill have found not only deeply distressing but very worrying from the point of view of adoptions and everything that we have said.
This is not, in any sense, to criticise the societies which have long been concerned with adoptions of children from overseas. But I should like to be reassured that this will make ratification of the Convention come about more quickly. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, could say when he expects it to be in force. If he cannot answer that question immediately, perhaps he could let me know.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. This would have the effect of bringing about ratification much more quickly. I cannot answer the other point raised by the noble Baroness, but my understanding of the situation is that it cannot take effect unless, of course, the Convention is ratified by three countries. I think I am right in saying that at the present moment only two countries have ratified it, so there may be some urgency in ratifying it quickly ourselves.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 26 [Revocation etc. of Convention adoption order]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 32:
Leave out Clause 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 26 was originally inserted in the Bill to cover cases where a British Convention adoption is revoked or annulled by a foreign court. Section 5 of the Adoption Act 1968, which is not affected by this Bill, obliges us to recognise the effect of that foreign decision. It was thought that some provision was needed to enable the courts here to determine what was to happen to the child adopted under a British order when the foreign courts annulled it. This view, however, was mistaken. This is a highly technical matter and I will give the reasons.
In so far as the matter falls to be determined in Britain, there is already jurisdiction to determine questions of that kind; namely under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 or through the ward-ship jurisdiction, or even by an application in the previous adoption proceedings.

533
In so far as the matter may be determined by a foreign court, it would not be in accordance with the Convention for a prima facie rule to be established in British law that the revocation or annulment does not affect the extinction of previous parental rights or duties. This means the whole basis of Clause 26(2) was wrong.
My Lords, for property questions, Clause 26(3) is now overtaken in all cases of revocation by the Schedule which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained. For annulments there is already jurisdiction to determine what should happen to property distributed on the basis of an adoption order that has been declared to be void. There is nothing more I can say on this. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Obtaining of birth certificate by adopted person]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 17, line 12, leave out ("subsection is") and insert ("subsections are")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 34 and 35 with this Amendment. I hope that when I have finished the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will feel that they go some way towards meeting his point of view. I would not presume to suggest that these Amendments go the whole way, but if they go part of the way perhaps he will be satisfied. These Amendments result from an undertaking I gave to the noble Lords, Lord Byers and Lord Wigoder, during the Report stage, to introduce a provision to cover the period between the minimum age of marriage—namely, 16 years —and 18 years when adopted persons will become entitled to their birth certificates, so as to enable adopted persons proposing to marry to be given information to prevent them unknowingly marrying someone within the prohibited degree of blood relationship. The noble Lords had put down an Amendment requiring the Registrar General to provide information on whether an adopted person and the person he intended to marry were within the prohibited degree of relationship.
The information available to the Registrar General—and I want to spell
534
this out rather carefully—is simply the names of the parents of the two people involved. He cannot say positively from those names, particularly if they are common names, whether two parents with the same name are indeed the same parent. Again, in cases where the adopted person's natural parents were not married, the father's name may well not appear on the records. In those circumstances, the Registrar General could not advise whether there was a relationship.
The present Amendment therefore provides that if a situation occurs where there is some evidence of a relationship, the Registrar General will advise the adopted person that he and the person he intends to marry may be within the prohibited degree of relationship. I do not think I can say anything more that would be useful. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will feel that this has to some substantial extent met his point of view and that of his noble friend Lord Byers. I beg to move.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for putting down this Amendment, and to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for explaining the difficulties in meeting the situation any more comprehensively than can be done by the terms of the Amendment put forward. I am very happy to accept it, as it appears to deal so far as possible with the situation which I raised during the Committee stage. I am grateful for the fact that the Amendment is put down in this form.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to make one point. This Amendment concerns a person "born in England or Wales" who intends to marry in England. Quite a lot of people are not born in England and Wales, particularly Service people who are born overseas, and at the present time unless they have registered with the High Commission they have difficulty even in getting a passport. How does this affect them? I wonder whether this Amendment should read "who was born or is registered in England or Wales", because I think there might be some difficulty.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall have to look into this—I really cannot give the noble Baroness a reply off the cuff—and will write to her. If it gives rise to any serious problem,

535
perhaps the noble Baroness—bearing in mind that this Bill is going to another place—will do something of which she has a great deal of experience. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness.
Baroness VICKERS: Yes, my Lords.I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.12 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I beg move Amendments Nos. 34 and 35.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 20, at end insert—
(" (8) On an application made in the prescribed manner by an adopted person under the age of 18 years who was born in England or Wales and is intending to be married in England or Wales, and on payment of the prescribed fee (if any), the Registrar General shall inform the applicant whether or not it appears from information contained in the registers of live births that the applicant and the person whom he intends to marry may be within the prohibited degrees of relationship for the purposes of the Marriage Act 1949.")
Page 17, line 21, leave out (" In this subsection") and insert ("(9) In this section").— (Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 29 [Restriction on arranging adoption and placing of children]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 are consequential. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 29, after ("unless") insert (" (a) ").
Page 17, line 30 at end insert—
("or
(b) he is acting in pursuance of an order of the High Court.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38, which is the next in the series.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 40, leave out from (" Scotland ") to end of line 42.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 30 [Inspection of books etc. of approved adoption societies in Scotland]:
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 39, which is the next in the series.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 30.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Restrictions on removal of child pending adoption]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 19, line 34, leave out ("arrest") and insert (" the arrest of the child ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40 and if your Lordships will allow me I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 43, 48 and 52. These Amendments clear up an ambiguity in the phrase "on arrest", which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned at Report stage. The phrase was intended to provide for the removal of a child from applicants for an adoption or custodianship order who had looked after the child for five years or three years respectively, if the child was arrested. The new wording provided by these Amendments makes the position clear. The Amendment to Clause 48 removes the ambiguity in the Scottish custody provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42:
Page 19, line 35, leave out from ("a") to ("person") in line 36.
Page 19, line 36, after ("adopter")") insert ("gives notice in writing to the local authority within whose area he has his home").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 together, and also speak to Amendment No. 44. They meet the undertaking given —at least, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will think they do—by the Government to the noble Baroness during Report stage to ensure that the voluntary organisation or local authority responsible for the care of the child is informed of a pending adoption application by the local authority which has

537
given notice of intention to apply to adopt. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for bringing forward this series of Amendments. They meet this point, which I think is in the best interests of the child, and make quite sure that a voluntary society will be treated in the same way as a local authority; therefore, there will be no difference. I think these are very useful Amendments, and I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43, which is consequential on Amendment No. 40.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 43, leave out ("arrest") and insert (" the arrest of the child").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 44, which is consequential on Amendments Nos. 41 and 42.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 3, at end insert:
(" (2A) A local authority which receives such notice as aforesaid in respect of a child whom the authority know to be in the care of another local authority or of a voluntary organisation shall, not more than seven days after the receipt of the notice, inform that other authority or the organisation in writing that they have received the notice.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Access and maintenance]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 23, line 4, at end insert (" but the court in deciding whether to make an order under subsection (1)(b) against a person who is not the child's mother or father shall have regard (among the circumstances of the case)—

(a) to whether that person had assumed any responsibility for the child's maintenance and, if he did, to the extent to which and the basis on which he did so, and to the length of time during which he discharged that responsibility;

(b) to the liability of any other person to maintain that child.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will feel that this Amendment goes most
538
of the way to meet his wishes regarding some of the safeguards which he advised. I do not know whether the noble Lord will want me to say any more. I hops that he is satisfied. We have' tried quite sincerely to meet the safeguards which he advised, and I hope that he feels this is adequate in the circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, again I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the way he has moved this Amendment. Where a maintenance order is being made against a person who is not the natural parent of the child, it imports similar safeguards to those which were in the Matrimonial Causes Act, and I therefore welcome it on that ground.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.21 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
Other reports by local authorities etc.
(" . Section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973 (power of courts to obtain reports) shall apply to applications under sections 34, 35, 36 and 40, and to applications which by virtue of section 39(1) are treated as if made under section 34, as it applies to applications made under section 3(3) of that Act, and shall continue to apply to applications under section 9 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 which by virtue of section 39(2) are treated as if made under section 34.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 46. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to refer also to Amendment No. 49. Again, I do not think that it is necessary for me to say very much. This is another matter raised at previous stages by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I think that he would probably say that we have gone rather further than he suggested on the question of revocation. We have been happy to do this. We hope that he will feel that this substantially meets the point that he raised. I beg to move.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I welcome this Amendment not only for its rythmic lilt, which I find rather appealing, but because it seems to offer what protection can be offered to a child where a custodianship order is revoked and there is a danger that the child might be left in some sort of vacuum.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, may I mention one matter on the draftsmanship of this new clause. It has been widely recognised that this Bill is a particularly offensive example of legislation by reference, and all the more offensive because it deals with people in their everyday lives and has not only to be understood by lawyers but by social workers themselves. Perhaps I may say a word or two more on that quite shortly on the Motion, That the Bill do now pass.
There is no need to add to the complexity by legislating in such a way that anybody reading the Act has to look forward, and in this new clause which comes after Clause 36 there are references not only to Sections 34, 35 and 36 but forwards to Section 39(1) and Section 40. I am out of order, I know, in referring to this now, but the same point arises on Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. One ought to be able to read a piece of legislation straight through so that it is perspicuous. That is of course quite impossible in a Bill prepared in this way, but, as I say, it is quite unnecessary to add purely gratuitous complications. I hope that the matter might be considered in Committee in another place.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising this matter. Perhaps he will allow us to look at it in the light of what he has just said and, as the noble and learned Lord has suggested, something can be done in another place should it be found to be necessary. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord himself might give certain advice to somebody in another place in respect of this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Restriction on removal of child where applicant has provided home for three years]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 24, line 21, at end insert ("at the time the application is made ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47. This is an Amendment designed for clarification purposes only and corrects a small inconsistency between the provisions of the Bill. Clauses 31, 38 and 48 all contain provisions designed to make it an offence
540
in certain circumstances to remove a child from the home where he has lived for some time. In the first and last of these clauses the qualifying period of time entitling the applicant to the protection afforded by the Bill has to be completed before the making of the relevant application to the court. In the case, however, of Clause 38 it is arguable that the clause, as drafted, applies to a case where the application was made before the end of the qualifying period (in this case three years), but the child is not actually removed until after the qualifying period. The Amendment does nothing more than bring the wording of Clause 38 into line with that of Clauses 31 and 48 on this point. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 26, leave out ("arrest") and insert (" the arrest of the child").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Custodianship order on application for adoption or guardianship]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 15, leave out subsection (4).— (Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 50:
Transpose Clause 39 to after Clause 36.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, may I move Amendment No. 50 and speak to Amendment No. 51. These are drafting Amendments aimed at arranging the provisions of Part II of the Bill in a more logical sequence. The effect of the rearrangement is to group together at the beginning of Part II all the provisions relating to custodianship orders in which court proceedings arise. I beg to move.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I need only mention the same point that I made on the earlier clause, that there will be a forward reference now from a clause before 37 to Clause

541
37, and a forward reference also by reason of Amendment No. 51 to Clause 42(2). I quite see the argument for grouping these clauses, but there are counterarguments when it means looking forward to see what the effect of a section means.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that these Amendments will meet the point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made on Amendment No. 46. In consequence, the new clause in Amendment No. 36 will not refer to the subsection but to the earlier clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 40 [Disputes between joint custodians]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 51:
Amendment moved—
Transpose Clause 40 to after Clause 36.— (Lord Welh-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Restriction on removal of child where applicant has provided home for three years]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 44, leave out (" arrest") and insert (" the arrest of the child").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49 [Custody order on application for adoption in Scotland]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 29, line 15, leave out ("section 8") and insert ("section 18").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 54. Amendment No. 53 is a drafting Amendment which changes the reference in Clause 49 to Section 8 of the Adoption Act 1958, which deals with the granting of interim orders in adoption proceedings, to a reference to Clause 18 of the Bill. The need for this arises from the fact that Section 8 of the 1958 Act was repealed at Report stage and replaced by the new clause in
542
serted at the same time as Clause 18. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 54.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 16, leave out ("of the 1958 Act ").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 53 [Substitution of s. 2 of Children Act 1948]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 31, line 14, leave out from ("Act") to (" (a)") in line 18 and insert (" if it appears to a local authority in relation to any child who is in their care under the foregoing section—").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 55 perhaps I may be allowed to speak to Amendments Nos 56, 57 and 58 at the same time. The first three Amendments provide for circumstances where a local authority assume parental rights which are vested jointly with another person. The fourth Amendment is necessary to replace the repealed Section 4(3) of the Adoption Act 1958, which provided that local authorities who had assumed parental rights under the Children Act 1948, or had a child committed to their care under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, should not have the right to agree to the child's adoption. No question of any substance arises other than the reasons which I have given. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 56.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 20, leave out from ("his") to (" (i) ") in line 23.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 57.
Amendment moved—
Page 32, line 6, at end insert ("the local authority may resolve that there shall vest in them those parental rights and duties which, immediately before the resolution, are vested in the parent in relation to whom the resolution is passed, and, if the rights and duties

543
were vested in that parent jointly with another person, they shall also be vested in the local authority jointly with that other person.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 58.
Amendment moved—
Page 33, line 33, leave out subsection (11) and insert—
(" (11) In this section—
"British adoption order" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1975:
"parent, except in subsection (l)(a), includes a guardian or custodian;
"parental rights and duties", in relation to a particular child, means all rights and duties which by law the mother and father have in relation to a legitimate child and his property except the right to consent 01 refuse to consent to the making of an application under section 13 of the Children Act 1975 and the right to agree or refuse to agree to the making of an adoption order."). —(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.36 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE moved Amendment No. 58A:
Page 34, line 7, leave out (" take full account of ") and insert (" give first consideration to ").
The noble and learned Lord said: "My Lords, I apologise for the late tabling of this Amendment but I was fully expecting it to be tabled by the Government, or at least hearing some reason why they should not have done so. It was only in going through the Marshalled List last night that I found it had not been done. This relates to the Amendment which your Lordships made in Committee, I believe to Clause 2. The Amendment affects both Clause 55 and Clause 60, and perhaps I may be allowed to speak to both. By Clause 55 it is proposed that Section 12 of the Children Act 1948 should read:
"In reaching any decision relating to a child in their care, a local authority shall take full account of the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child … ".
This is a matter which your Lordships have discussed on a number of occasions, and on which decision was taken on Clause 2 which read in exactly the same way. But your Lordships were not satisfied with Clause 2 as it originally stood and, after a Division on an Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder, your Lordships made Clause 2 read:
544
"… shall have regard to all the circumstances, the first consideration being given to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child ".
In other words, it meant that instead of consideration being given, first consideration must be given. That was a decision advisedly reached after full debate and after a Division.
When your Lordships were discussing Clause 55 at the Report stage, I ventured to point out that it was now out of line with Clause 2, as it had been amended, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was good enough to say he had not had his attention drawn to the point, but that he would consider it. The Amendment which I seek to ask your Lordships to make brings the new subsection (1) of Section 12 of the Children Act into line with Clause 2 of this Bill. It seeks to make it read,
"In reaching any decision relating to a child in their care, a local authority shall give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child ".
I know that the Government have argued that that is an impossible criterion. I venture to disagree with that observation.
The present law, so far as custody and guardianship is concerned, requires the courts to have regard to two matters: that the welfare of the child shall be the first consideration, and that it shall be the paramount consideration. Those are two quite different matters. "Paramount consideration" means that if the welfare of the child conflicts with some other consideration the welfare of the child must prevail. Directing the court to give first consideration to the welfare of the child is something quite different. It merely directs the court, the welfare officer or local authority, to consider specifically the welfare of the child and to give its welfare greater weight than other considerations; but it does not say it must prevail over other considerations.
Your Lordships accepted that, in amending Clause 2 at the instance of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The question remains why should not Clause 55, the new Section 12, be brought into line. There are only two possible reasons. One is that the Government have not accepted with good grace the Amendment which your Lordships have made to Clause 2 and are unwilling themselves to take the initiative of bringing Clauses 58 and 60

545
into line, but are prepared to send the Bill in an anomalous form to another place, possibly with a view to seeking a reverse of your Lordships' decision on Clause 2. If that is the reason, then I hope I have spared their feelings by taking the initiative, even at a late stage, of moving this Amendment to remove an anomaly. Even if Clause 2 does not meet with the approval of the Government, that is no reason at all to fail to make consequential Amendments.
The second, and only possible other reason is that different considerations should apply to care from those that apply to adoption. The only argument that could be advanced with any cogency on this is that, so far as adoption is concerned, your Lordships did no more than to restore in Clause 2 what the Houghton Committee had proposed and what the Government proposed to depart from. The Houghton Committee, of course, had no concern with care. However, that is no reason why your Lordships should not make the Amendment and indeed no reason why the Government should not accede to it, because they were not prepared to regard adoption as a special case and were prepared to override the recommendations of the Houghton Committee. That is the only valid reason. Care differs in some respects from adoption, but it is a stronger case because the tragedies which have been so much in the minds of your Lordships in considering this Bill related to children in care and, surely, if we want to avoid a recurrence of the Maria Colwell tragedy—and it was by no means unique, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, pointed out—the very least we can do is to direct that all concerned, including local authorities and social workers, shall give first consideration to the welfare of the child. If the Government oppose this Amendment—and I trust they will not —they will be taking a serious responsibility on themselves if there should be a recurrence of any such tragedy, and I therefore have no hesitation in recommending these Amendments to your Lordships.
5.45 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I find it difficult to add anything to the extremely powerful and persuasive words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord
546
Simon of Glaisdale. No doubt the Government will bear in mind that they are the words not only of one of the Law Lords, but of one who has in his time been a distinguished President of the Divorce Division and who therefore speaks with perhaps more authority than almost anybody could in this House on this topic. I support the Amendments not only because they would bring a degree of consistency into the Bill, would remove an anomaly and would avoid the necessity of the courts having to apply a series of different tests, depending on which part of the Bill they were considering, but because in its own right the Amendment to give first consideration to the welfare of the child is a vast improvement on the present text:
"… shall take full account of the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child …"
I have no desire to go over what is now old ground and I have said before to your Lordships that to "take full account" is the most insipid test imaginable. It is almost surplusage. No court which has ever considered a case in which the welfare of the child is at stake would afterwards admit that it had not taken full account of one of the obvious features of the case. It is imperative that we give assistance to the local authority in this case, just as we have given assistance to the courts in Clause 2, and indicate to them the degree of priority which the welfare of the child is to have.
It was suggested at one time that if we removed the words "take full account" from the first half of Clause 55, we would raise some difficulties over the second half, where it provided that the local authority may, if
"necessary, for the purpose of protecting members of the public … exercise their powers in relation to a particular child in their care in a manner which may not be consistent with their duty under the foregoing subsection …"
If the Amendments were accepted, the second half of Clause 55 would give no difficulties to the courts. They would be able to take the view, if they wished to do so in a particular case, that they had a duty to protect members of the public, and their duty under the first half of Clause 55 would not arise. I ask the Government to consider seriously whether they cannot, even at this late stage, in the interest of promoting the welfare of

547
the child without harming the legitimate interests of the other parties in an application under Clause 55, accept the Amendments and remove an obvious anomaly.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I, too, support the Amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. As I have said before, my interests lie particularly in fostering, and the point that the noble and learned Lord made—that it is more important for first consideration to be given in the care section than under adoption—is of vital importance. For me, as a layman, to try to add anything after the two previous speakers would be impertinent, and I rise simply to say that I support the Amendments.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not know what view the Government will take over this Amendment; perhaps they are going to accept it. I had not appreciated that we should be having another major debate on this issue at this stage of the Bill, and it is with considerable trepidation that I enter the debate at all, particularly as I feel that the other side of this case should be put before the Government reach a decision on it. My noble friends supported the Government earlier when this matter was debated, really on the grounds that under Clause 55 we are talking about the Children Act 1948, and about child care cases, and not about adoption, custody or guardianship. Certainly when I was the chairman of a children's committee the view then was that one was considering the child in its family and in relation to the family. It seems to me that there is a difference, because most children coming into care are there for a very short period of time. As a proportion of the whole, the children who are there more or less permanently are few.
The worry has run through the Bill that many parents who require their children to be fostered for a period will be apprehensive that once they let the child go it will be taken away from them by being fostered and then adopted, in many cases through no fault at all of the parent. I have previously quoted the case of the mother who may have to go into a mental hospital and who puts her child into care because there is nowhere
548
else for it to go, but who has every intention of looking after it again when she is well.
I believe that there is a suggestion running through the Bill which could frighten parents who ought to allow their children to go into care for perfectly good and valid reasons but who might be prevented from allowing this to happen because of the fear that they would lose them. My worry relates to the short-term cases and the anxiety of parents, because in such cases I should still have thought it was the object of much child care to return the child to its natural family. After all, it is our job to uphold the family wherever we can and it is for that reason that I believe that, inconsistent as it may be in law— and I quite appreciate the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has made —we are dealing with a rather different situation. I should be quite happy to see the Bill remain as it is.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord rises, I should like to support the Amendments because I feel that most people who understand children who are dealing with them— whether they are social workers or those working in the courts— know that the best place for children is their own home and will do everything possible to ensure that they remain there. Surely, however, "give first consideration to" is better than" take full account of". Therefore, I support the Amendments.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the reason the Government did not put down an Amendment on these lines is that they are not convinced that Clause 2, as amended on Report, is now right and that the interpretation is free from doubt. For this reason, the Government are giving further consideration to the matter and this is something which could be dealt with in another place. At this stage the Government have decided not to table an Amendment, because there is a good deal of confusion about the matter. I do not believe that I can add very much to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. We have been over this ground before at great length and I am sorry that I have not the support of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. both of whom, I think I am

549
right in saying, took an entirely different view.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, if I may intervene, although the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did so, particularly in the memorandum which his Department circulated, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, had doubts about the paramountcy test and not, as I understood him, about the primacy test.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with respect to the noble and learned Lord, that was precisely my point. I think the view was expressed at the time that "first consideration "could be taken to mean" paramount consideration ", but there is this difference between us and I do not feel, in my position as a layman, that I can stand up as strongly as I should like to against the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Wigoder, whose legal ability is well known to your Lordships' House. If the noble and learned Lord intends to press the matter, let me say quite frankly that I shall wilt and shall do nothing about it.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, if I may have your Lordships' leave to address the House a second time, I did not entirely gather from the last words of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, whether, if I pressed the Amendment, he would be prepared to accept it, though not liking it at all. If so, there is nothing more for me to say except to thank those noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have supported me.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: I beg to move Amendment No. 58B.
Amendment moved—
Page 37, line 5, leave out from (" shall ") to first (" the") in line 6 and insert (" give first consideration to ")—(Lord Simon of Glaisdale.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Substitution of Section 16 of Social Work {Scotland) Act 1968]:
5.55 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 38, line 39, leave out (" refuse consent to adoption ") and insert (" consent or refuse
550
to consent to the making of an application under section 13 of the Children Act 1975 and the right to agree or refuse to agree to the making of an adoption order ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment expands the definition of "relevant parental rights" in Clause 61(2) of the Bill, which applies only to Scotland and deals with the assumption of parental rights in respect of a child in local authority care by that local authority. In doing so, it brings Scottish provisions of the Bill into line with what is already provided in relation to England and Wales.
As at present drafted, the definition of the rights in respect of the child which devolve on the local authority refers to consent to adoption as a right which, uniquely, remains with the parent. The same provision exists in the present law in relation to England and Wales as well as Scotland. The only change that has been required is to make it clear that the rights concerned in relation to adoption include the right to refuse consent to adoption as well as to consent and the right to agree or refuse agreement to the making of an order under Clause 13 freeing the child for adoption. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 60.
Page 40, line 22, at end insert—
(" ( ) Where in the case of a child to whom a resolution under this section applies—

(a) an order is made under section 13 of the Children Act 1975 declaring the child free for adoption; or

(b) a British adoption order is made; or

(c) a guardian is appointed under section 4(2A) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925;

the resolution shall cease to have effect.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think I can deal briefly with this Amendment. Its purpose is to bring together various circumstances in which a resolution passed by a local authority in Scotland assuming parental rights in relation to a child shall cease to have effect without its being rescinded by decision of the local authority itself or terminated by order of the sheriff under existing statutory provisions. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 61.
Page 40, line 36, at end insert—
("(2) In this section "British adoption order" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1975.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a tidying-up Amendment. The definition contained in the Amendment, which relates to the assumption of parental rights by a local authority in Scotland, is the same as that already included in Clause 53 (11), the equivalent provision relating to parental rights resolutions in England and Wales. "British adoption order" is a phrase introduced in the Bill to enable reference to be made readily to adoption orders made by courts—for example, in Northern Ireland and the Channel Islands—in parts of the United Kingdom to which neither the Adoption Act 1958 nor most of the present Bill applies. I beg to move.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, may I take up the noble Lord's felicity "a tidying-up operation"? What this Amendment does— like the two previous ones—is to amend the Act of 1968 in such a way that it refers forward to this very Bill—the Children Bill 1975. I merely draw attention to that as one of the horrors of legislation by reference. I know that it tidies up in a certain way, but from a point of view of intelligibility I hardly think it does that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6 p.m.
Clause 62 [Making of adoption orders where local authority have parental rights]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 40. leave out lines 39 to 45 and insert—
("(4A) A court may entertain an application under—

(a) section 7 of the Children Act 1975 for an adoption order in respect of a child;

(b) section 13 of the Children Act 1975 for an order declaring a child free for adoption,

notwithstanding that, by virtue of a resolution under section 16 of this Act, a local authority have parental rights with respect to him.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment and with your Lordships' permission I propose to speak to Amendment No. 105 at the same time.
552
These Amendments both relate to care provisions applying to Scotland, and can conveniently be moved together. Their composite effect is to extend the provisions at present in Section 18(4) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, by drawing together this subsection and a new version of subsection 18(4A) as included in Clause 62 of the Bill as at present drafted.
The two subsections as now read together will provide that, notwithstanding the passing of a parental rights resolution by a local authority in respect of a child (and the consequent transfer of all parental rights to the local authority except in relation to adoption), the same child may be the subject of court proceedings relating to the appointment of guardian, the adoption of the child or the making of the child free for adoption. It is a provision for the avoidance of doubt rather than one leading to any substantive change in the law relating to child care, adoption or guardianship. It is also complementary to Amendment No. 60, which provides that on the making of any relevant order by the court the resolution shall cease to have effect.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 66 [Child in care of body other than local authority];
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65:
Page 42, line 13, leave out from ("a") to ("if") in line 14 and insert ("voluntary organisation ")
Page 42, line 15, leave out ("body") and insert (" organisation ")
Page 42, line 16, leave out (" body") and insert (" organisation ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 76 and 89.
The Amendments to Clause 66 substitute for the sake of simplicity the term "voluntary organisation" instead of the phrase "body corporate (other than a local authority) or an unincorporated body of persons" in Clause 66. In consequence, a definition of "voluntary organisation" is put into the Bill and into the Adoption Act 1958 by the Amendments to Clause 76 and Schedule 3, and this is the usual system. It is not a new definition, and it is one of simplicity.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 71 [Courts?]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 66 and 67:
Page 45, line 22, at end insert (" in the case of an application under section 13, any county court within whose district a parent or guardian of the child is;
(bb)")
Page 45, line 27, at end insert ("and, in the case of an application under section 13, any magistrates' court within whose area a parent or guardian of the child is ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two Amendments can be taken together. They will enable freeing application under Clause 13 to be brought either in the court within whose area or district the child is, or in the court within whose area or district a parent or guardian is. I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness feels rather strongly about this. This is considered desirable as it may provide a more convenient court in which the application may be heard where a child has been placed, pending the application, in a temporary home some distance from the agency or parent's home.
If either of these two courts should prove inconvenient, the application may be transferred, after it has been made, to a more convenient court. The Government gave an undertaking to consider this point when very strong representations were made by the noble Baroness, and I hope that she and your Lordships will be satisfied with the Amendment as it stands, because on going into the matter we felt there was a great deal of validity in what the noble Baroness said.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for bringing forward this Amendment in the generous way that he has. The point of it is simply to make it easier, in the cases where the child is being freed for adoption under the new procedure, for both the natural parents and the agency in this case. It seems to me something of great practical use to people, and I am very grateful to see it included in the Bill.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
6.6 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 68:
After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
Evidence of agreement and consent
(" .—(1) Any agreement or consent which is required by Part I, except section 25(6), or Part II to be given to the making of any order or application for an order may be given in writing, and, if the document signifying the agreement or consent is—

(a) in the case of an adoption order or an application for an order under section 13, witnessed in accordance with rules, or

(b) in the case of an application made under Part II, witnessed in accordance with rules of court,

it shall be admissible in evidence without further proof of the signature of the person by whom it was executed.

(2) A document signifying such agreement or consent which purports to be witnessed in accordance with rules or as the case may be, with rules of court shall be presumed to be so witnessed, and to have been executed and witnessed on the date and at the place specified in the document, unless the contrary is proved.
(3) In the application of this section to Scotland—

(a) for "made under Part II" there is substituted "to which Part II applies";

(b) for "admissible in evidence" there is substituted "sufficient evidence"; and

(c) for "rules of court" there is substituted "act of sederunt".")

The noble Lord said: This new clause replaces and preserves some of the provisions of Section 6 of the 1958 Act which is repealed by the Bill. It is necessary to enable agreements to adoption given in writing, which will be witnessed by the adoption officers to be appointed under Clause 19, to be admissible in evidence, and the new clause achieves this. It also makes similar provisions in respect of consents to applications for orders freeing a child for adoption, and consents in custody proceedings under Part II of the Bill. Subsection (3) makes the provisions applicable in Scottish terms.
The clause does not apply to agreements or consents required to Convention adoption orders where the child is not a United Kingdom national, since this is covered by Clause 25(7).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Panel for guardians ad idem and adoption officers]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 46, line 29, leave out (" are to ") and insert (" may in accordance with rules").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment allows the Lord Chancellor to draw up

555
court rules regarding the appointment of guardians ad litem and adoption officers from the panels established under regulations made by the Secretary of State. It will help to achieve the Houghton Committee's intention that guardians ad litem and adoption officers should be suitably experienced people. Personnel will be covered by regulations which by Amendment No. 71 can be annulled. It is therefore a Negative Resolution and I gave an undertaking, both at the Committee and Report stages, that there will be wide consultation in the appointment of such people.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 46, line 34, at end insert—
(" (3) In relation to Scotland, the reference in subsection (1) to guardians ad litem shall be construed as a reference to curators ad litem.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment repairs an omission in Clause 73 as it was introduced into the Bill at Report stage by providing for the construction in Scottish terms of the phrase "guardian ad litem" used in subsection (1) of the clause. The curator ad litem in adoption proceedings in Scotland performs the same practical task as the guardian ad litem in England and Wales, by reporting to the court on the suitability of the arrangements made for the adoption of the child. This position is preserved under Clause 19 of the Bill, which already refers to the curator ad litem in relation to Scotland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 75 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 47, line 3, at end insert—
(" A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 73 shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope you will allow me to speak to Amendments Nos. 79, 85 and 97. This group of Amendments can be taken together. During Committee and Report stages on the Bill the comment was frequently made that noble Lords did not know what the
556
content of the rules and regulations made under the Bill would be, and hence were at a disadvantage in discussing and agreeing certain clauses. The noble Baroness made this point on more than one occasion.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor undertook during Committee on 13th February that in due course an Amendment would be moved to require rules to be laid. The new subsection (1) of the new Section 56 introduced into the 1958 Act by Amendment No. 85 provides that all rules and regulations made under the Adoption Act 1958, and hence under the Bill, will be subject to annulment procedure. Amendment No. 71 provides similarly that regulations to be made by the Secretary of State regarding the panels of experienced people from which guardians ad litem and adoption officers are to be drawn will be subject to annulment procedure. Amendments Nos. 79 and 97 and subsections (2), (3) and (4) in Amendment No. 85 meet the request of the General Register Office that the regulations which will need to be made under the 1958 Act with regard to the Adopted Children Register should be made by the Registrar General with the approval of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government for introducing this Amendment. We put down a similar Amendment at Committee stage and the Government said that they would look at it. It is pleasing that they have been able to include it at this stage.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Interpretation]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 47, line 40, after (" "guardian") insert (" means—

(a) a person appointed by deed or will in accordance with the provisions of the Guardianship of Infants Acts 1886 and 1925 or the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 or by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the guardian of the child, and

(b)")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 72, I trust that you will allow me to speak to Amendment No. 88. The Bill as it stands defines the term "guardian" only in relation to the adoption of illegitimate children

557
where the father has custody of the child. The 1958 Act, however, defined "guardian" in the more usual sense of a person appointed by deed or will in accordance with the provisions of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 and 1925, or by a court. The purpose of the first Amendment is to widen the definition of "guardian" to bring it into line with that contained in the 1958 Act. The second Amendment merely modifies the definition of "guardian" in the 1958 Act so that the wording is in line with that of the definition in the Bill. The Guardianship of Infants Act 1886 was repealed by the 1971 Act, but it is necessary to include it in the definition as there may still be guardians who were appointed under it. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 48, line 9, after second ("rules") insert (" made ")
Page 48, line 10, at end insert ("or made by virtue of section 9(4) of the 1958 Act under section 15 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. I think your Lordships will agree that these two Amendments to Clause 76 can be moved together. The first is simply a matter of drafting. The second provides for the making of magistrates' courts rules under the Bill in relation to adoption matters. At present the rule-making powers in this area are not given under Section 9(3) of the 1958 Act, to which the Bill's definition of "rules" is tied. They are given under Section 15 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, and are related to adoption matters by Section 9(4) of the 1958 Act. The Amendment simply ensures that these rule-making powers are not lost under the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 48, leave out lines 12 to 14.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 75, which is consequential. It would delete definitions of "trust" and "trustee" which are not required; because the drafting of paragraph 16 of the Schedule agreed to earlier
558
is slightly different from the drafting of Clause 24(1) of the Bill which it replaces.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 76. I spoke to this when dealing with Amendment No. 63.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 19, at end insert—
(" "voluntary organisation" means a body other than a public or local authority the activities of which are not carried on for profit.")—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 77 which is consequential upon Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, leave out lines 23 and 24.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Approval etc. of adoption societies in Scotland.]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 78:
Leave out Schedule 1, and insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE 1
  STATUS CONFERRED BY ADOPTION OR LEGITIMATION
    PART I

      INTERPRETATION
      1.—(1) This Part applies for the construction of this Schedule, except where the context otherwise requires.
      (2) "Adoption" means adoption—

      (a) by an adoption order as defined in section 76 of this Act,

      (b) by an order made under the 1958 Act or the Adoption Act 1950 or any enactment repealed by the Adoption Act 1950,

      (c) by an order made in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or in any of the Channel Islands, or

      (d) which is an overseas adoption as defined by section 4(3) of the Adoption Act 1968,

      and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.

      (3) "Legitimation" means—

      (a) legitimation under section 1 of the Legitimacy Act 1926,

      (b) legitimation within section 8 of that Act (legitimation by extraneous law), or

      (c) legitimation (whether or not by virtue of subsequent marriage of the parents) recognised by the law of England and Wales,

      559
      and effected under the law of any other country,

      and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.

      (4) These definitions of adoptions and legitimation include, where the context admits, those effected before the passing of this Act, and —

      (a) the date of an adoption effected by an order is the date of the making of the order,

      (b) the date of legitimation, in the case of legitimation by marriage, is the date of marriage.

      (5) "Existing enactment or instrument" means any enactment or other instrument passed or executed before 1st January 1976 (and whether or not before the passing of this Act).
      (6) The death of the testator is the date at which a will or codicil is to be regarded as executed.

PART II

  ADOPTION ORDERS
  Status conferred by adoption
  2.—(1) An adopted child shall be treated in law—

  (a) where the adopters are a married couple, as if he had been born as a child of the marriage (whether or not he was in fact born after the marriage was solemnized);

  (b) in any other case, as if he had been born to the adopter in wedlock (but not as a child of any actual marriage of the adopter).

  (2) An adopted child shall be treated in law as if he were not the child of any person other than the adopters or adopter.
  (3) It is hereby declared that this paragraph prevents an adopted child from being illegitimate.
  (4) This paragraph has effect—

  (a) in the case of an adoption before 1st January 1976, from that date, and

  (b) in the case of any other adoption, from the date of the adoption.

  (5) Subject to the provisions of this Part, this paragraph applies for the construction of enactments or instruments executed before the adoption or later, and so applies subject to any contrary indication, and in the case of an existing enactment or instrument so far as the context admits.
  (6) Subject to the provisions of this Part, this paragraph has effect as respects things done, or events occurring, after the adoption, or after 31st December 1975, whichever is the later.
  Vocabulary
  3. A relationship existing by virtue of paragraph 2 may be referred to as an adoptive relationship, and—

  (a) a male adopter may be referred to as the adoptive father;

  (b) a female adopter may be referred to as the adoptive mother;

  560

  (c) any other relative of any degree under an adoptive relationship may be referred to as an adoptive relative of that degree,

  but this paragraph does not prevent the term "parent" or any other term not qualified by the word "adoptive", being treated as including an adoptive relative.

  Instruments and enactments concerning properly
  4.—(1) Paragraph 2—

  (a) does not apply to an existing instrument or enactment so far as it contains a disposition of property, and

  (b) does not apply to any public general Act in its operation on any disposition of property in an existing instrument or enactment.

  (2) The repeal by this Act of sections 16 and 17 of the 1958 Act, and of references to those sections, does not affect their application in relation to a disposition of property effected by an existing instrument.
  (3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply to section 17(3) of the 1958 Act (which is superseded by the provision for the protection of trustees and personal representatives in Part IV).
  5.—(1) Subject to any contrary indication, the rules of construction contained in this paragraph apply to any instrument, other than an existing instrument, so far as it contains a disposition of property.
  (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, provisions of the law of intestate succession applicable to the estate of a deceased person shall be treated as if contained in an instrument executed by him (while of full capacity) immediately before his death.
  (3) In applying paragraph 2(1) to a disposition which depends on the date of birth of a child or children of the adoptive parent or parents, the disposition shall be construed as if—

  (a) the adopted child had been born on the date of adoption,

  (b) two or more children adopted on the same date had been born on that date in the order of their actual births,

  but this does not affect any reference to the age of a child.

  (4) Paragraph 2(2) does not affect any interest vested in possession before the adoption.
  (5) Where it is necessary to determine for the purposes of a disposition of property effected by an instrument whether a woman can have a child, it shall be presumed that once a woman has attained the age of fifty-five she will not adopt a child after execution of the instrument, and notwithstanding paragraph 2 if she does so the child shall not be treated as her child or as the child of her spouse (if any) for the purposes of the instrument.
  (6) In this paragraph "instrument" includes a private Act settling property, but not any other enactment.
  (7) Paragraph 2(6) has effect subject to this paragraph.
  6.—(1) In Scotland paragraph 2 does not affect the existing law relating to adopted persons in respect of—

  (a) the succession to a deceased person (whether testate or intestate); and

  (b) the disposal of property by virtue of any inter vivos deed.

  (2) Paragraphs 4 and 5 do not apply to Scotland.
  Other enactments and instruments
  7.—(1) Paragraph 2 does not apply for the purposes of the table of kindred and affinity in Schedule 1 to the Marriage Act 1949 or sections 10 and 11 (incest) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.
  (2) In Scotland paragraph 2 does not apply in determining the prohibited degrees of consanguinity and affinity in respect of the law relating to marriage or in respect of the crime of incest, except that, on adoption, the adopter and the child shall be deemed, for all time coming, to be within the said prohibited degrees in respect of the law relating to marriage.
  Adoption of child by natural parents
  8.—(1) Paragraph 2(2) has no effect as respects an illegitimate child adopted by both its natural parents.
  (2) In the case of an illegitimate child adopted by one of its natural parents as sole adoptive parent, paragraph 2(2) has no effect as respects entitlement to property depending on relationship to that parent, or as respects anything else depending on that relationship.
  Peerages, etc.
  9. An adoption does not affect the descent of any peerage or dignity or title of honour.

PART III

  LEGITIMATION
  Instruments concerning property
  10. The repeals made by this Act in the Legitimacy Act 1926 and in the enactments amending that Act shall not affect the application of that Act in relation to a disposition of property effected by an existing instrument or enactment.
  11.—(1) Subject to any contrary indication, the rules of construction contained in this paragraph apply to any instrument other than an existing instrument, so far as the instrument contains a disposition of property.
  (2) For the purposes of this paragraph, provisions of the law of intestate succession applicable to the estate of a deceased person shall be treated as if contained in an instrument executed by him (while of full capacity) immediately before his death.
  (3) A legitimated person, and any other person, shall be entitled to take any interest as if the legitimated person had been born legitimate.
  (4) A disposition which depends on the date of birth of a child or children of the parent or parents shall be construed as if—
  562

  (a) a legitimated child had been born on the date of legitimation,

  (b) two or more children legitimated on the same date had been born on that date in the order of their actual births,

  but this does not affect any reference to the age of a child.

  (5) If an illegitimate person, or a person adopted by one of his natural parents, dies (before the passing of this Act or later) and—

  (a) his parents subsequently marry, and

  (b) the deceased would, if living at the time of the marriage, have become a legitimated person,

  section 1(1) of the Legitimacy Act 1926 and this paragraph shall apply for the construction of the instrument so far as it relates to the taking of interests by, or in succession to, his spouse, children and remoter issue as if he was legitimated at the date of the marriage.

  (6) In this paragraph "instrument" includes a private Act settling property, but not any other enactment.
  (7) Section 1(1) of the Legitimacy Act 1926 has effect subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
  Legitimation of adopted child
  12.—(1) Paragraph 2 does not prevent an adopted child being legitimated under the Legitimacy Act 1926—

  (a) if the adoptive parents are the natural parents, or

  (b) if either natural parent is the sole adoptive parent,

  and in the latter case paragraph 2(2) does not affect the natural relationship between the adopted child when legitimated and the other natural parent.

  (2) The revocation of an adoption order in consequence of the legitimation of the adopted person (whether by virtue of subsequent marriage of the parents or otherwise) shall not affect Part II of this Schedule as it applies to any instrument executed before the date of legitimation.
  Extent
  13. This Part does not apply to Scotland.

PART IV

  SUPPLEMENTAL
  Dispositions depending on date of birth
  14.—(1) Where a disposition depends on the date of birth of a child who was born illegitimate and who—

  (a) is adopted by the natural parents, or by one of them as sole adoptive parent, or

  (b) is legitimated,

  paragraph 5(3) and paragraph 11(4) do not affect entitlement under Part II of the Family Law Reform Act 1969 (illegitimate children).

  (2) Where a disposition depends on the date of birth of an adopted child who is legitimated paragraph 11(4) does not affect entitlement by virtue of paragraph 5(3).
  (3) This paragraph applies for example where—

  (a) a testator dies in 1976 bequeathing a legacy to his eldest grandchild living at a specified time,

  (b) his daughter has an illegitimate child in 1977 who is the first grandchild,

  (c) his married son has a child in 1978,

  (d) subsequently the illegitimate child is adopted by the mother as sole adoptive parent, or by both natural parents, or is legitimated,

  and in all those cases the daughter's child remains the eldest grandchild of the testator throughout.

  Protection of trustees and personal representatives
  15.—(1) A trustee or personal representative is not under a duty, by virtue of the law relating to trusts or the administration of estates, to enquire, before conveying or distributing any property, whether—

  (a) any adoption has been effected or revoked, or

  (b) any person is illegitimate, or is adopted by one of his natural parents, and could be legitimated (or if deceased be treated as legitimated),

  if that fact could affect entitlement to the property.

  (2) A trustee or persona! representative shall not be liable to any person by reason of a conveyance or distribution of the property made without regard to any such fact if he has not received notice of the fact before the conveyance or distribution.
  (3) This paragraph does not prejudice the right of a person to follow the property, or any property representing it, into the hands of another person, other than a purchaser, who has received it.
  Property devolving with peerages, etc.
  16.—(1) Neither an adoption nor a legitimation shall affect the devolution of any property limited (expressly or not) to devolve (as nearly as the law permits) along with any peerage or dignity or title of honour.
  (2) This paragraph applies only if and so far as a contrary intention is not expressed in the instrument, and shall have effect subject to the terms of the instrument.
  Entails
  17. It is hereby declared that references in this Schedule to dispositions of property including references to a disposition by the creation of an entailed interest.
  Extent
  18. This Part does not apply to Scotland.")
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 78, which is consequential on Amendment No. II. I do not think it is necessary for me to
  564
  say anything on this Amendment. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went carefully through this matter.
  Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has been obliged to leave the House in a position where some clarification may be needed, and perhaps could be given from the Box. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that this is a very unfortunate and uncertain way of concluding deliberations in this vital area. The first thing that I should like to draw to your attention is a misprint which occurs at the head of page 14. Your Lordships will observe that the first paragraph at the top of that page reads. "6—(1)", and that should read. "7." You will also observe that we had "7." on the previous page. Of course for the rest of Part II each one of those paragraphs is incorrectly numbered and should be corrected in the Bill before we pass it to another place.
  The whole of this Schedule I have referred to previously is a beneficial Amendment—I must be careful not to speak with a forked tongue! Nevertheless, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one particular area where we believe it to be wholly beneficial in that, so far as we can observe, it carries out Recommendation 83 of the Houghton Report which said:
  "An adopted child should have exactly the same rights under wills and other instruments as a natural child of the adoptive family".
  That is paragraphs 326 and 327 of the Houghton Report. As this Schedule specifically relates to four entirely separate items referred to by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell has suggested, I do not feel we should go into this in specific detail. However, there are one or two small matters to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention.
  What the Houghton Committee desired to achieve was made clear. The replacement of the whole of Schedule 1 has been achieved in this Amendment; but I would stress to your Lordships that this Amendment has been in our hands for only 48 hours, and it has therefore been particularly difficult to devote the degree of scrutiny to it which it deserves. I

  565
  have not, unfortunately, had time to communicate with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, upon this matter privately, and I should like to put the point to him that under "Interpretation" there is reference to "legitimation", and head (c) says:
  "legitimation (whether or not by virtue of subsequent marriage of the parents) recognised by the law of England and Wales and effected under the law of any other country."
  This, we assume, refers to Convention countries. However, if the words are to be interpreted as stated, it appears that "any other country" could be any other country in the world. It is a matter of concern currently whether "any other country" is taken to mean, for instance, South Vietnam. I am unaware at the present moment whether South Vietnam is one of the Convention countries.
  Turning to the transitional provisions, we believe these to be entirely satisfactory. I have referred earlier to the misprint that occurs on page 14, and there is a matter to which reference was made by my noble friend Lord Wardington regarding the descent of Peerages. This is, as printed, paragraph 9, but in fact is paragraph 10. It states:
  "An adoption does not affect the descent of any Peerage or dignity or title of honour."
  My noble friend referred to this matter at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill, and I think that the situation as stated at the present moment, although apparently clear, is not sufficiently clear for my noble friend. Therefore if it is not possible for the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to elucidate on this at the present time for my noble friend Lord Wardington, I should be grateful if he could do so at a later date.
  Part III, "Legitimation, Instruments concerning property", we referred to much earlier in our deliberations, at Committee and Report stage. There are matters here of considerable complexity. They are matters concerning the current Finance Bill and the previous Finance Act which reached the Statute Book only in March. It would appear there is a very good opportunity for another place to examine Part III of the Schedule, and I feel that if ever there was a case for the reinforcement of the argument for a bicameral Parliament for the full inves
  566
  tigation of legislation before it reaches the Statute Book, this provides a golden example.
  Lord SOMERS: My Lords, before the noble Lord answers, I wonder whether I might query what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said at the beginning of his speech. He said that there was a misprint at the top of page 14. I do not think there is, because if he looks back at page 13 he will see paragraphs 4 and 5 without brackets; in other words, clauses so to speak, with their various sub-paragraphs, and then paragraph 6 is over the page.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may intervene, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, must be referring to an Unmarshalled List, where there was an error. In that respect he is perfectly right. But the noble Lord, Lord Somers, is also perfectly right, because in the Marshalled List the error has been corrected. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will not mind if I say that I should like to read Hansard, both at leisure and with some care, in order to consider what he has said tonight. There will be one or two things about which I shall want to communicate with him. The noble Lord will know only too well he has time between now and the appearance of the Bill in another place to advise his friends accordingly.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  6.25 p.m.
  Schedule 3 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know how your Lordships will react to this suggestion. I can give the assurance that every Amendment from now on is minor, consequential or drafting. I am sure that those of your Lord-ships who have read through the Amendments will agree with me. Therefore, I should like, subject to your Lordships' consent, to move Amendments Nos. 79 to 107 en bloc. But I cannot do that if any noble Lord wants to raise a point at some stage between Amendments Nos. 79 and 107. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 54, line 24, leave out (" Secretary of State") and insert (" Registrar General ")
  Page 54, line 27, leave out (" Secretary of State") and insert (" Registrar General for Scotland ")
  Page 54, line 28, at end insert—
  ("16A. In section 26(2) after the words "adoption order" there are inserted the words "other than a Convention adoption order".")
  Page 55, leave out lines 3 and 4.
  Page 55, line 6, at end insert—
  ("21A. In section 36 for the words "subsection (2) of section 3 of this Act" there are substituted the words "section 17(1) of the Children Act 1975" and for the words "care and possession", in each place where they occur, there are substituted the words "actual custody".")
  Page 55, line 6, at end insert—
  ("21B. In section 37(1), for the words "subsection (2) of section 3 of this Act" there are substituted the words "section 17(1) of the Children Act 1975".")
  Page 55, line 16, at end insert—
  ("23A. For section 56 there is substituted the following section—
  "Rules and regulations
  56.—(1) Any power to make rules or regulations conferred by this Act on the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State, the Registrar General or the Registrar General for Scotland shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (2) The Registrar General shall not make regulations under section 21 of this Act except with the approval of the Secretary of State.
  (3) The Registrar General for Scotland shall not make regulations under section 23 of this Act except with the approval of the Secretary of State.
  (4) The Statutory Instruments Act 1946 shall apply to a statutory instrument containing regulations made for the purposes of this Act by the Registrar General for Scotland as if the regulations had been made by a Minister of the Crown.")
  Page 55, line 21, leave out ("is") and insert ("are")
  Page 55, line 23, at end insert—
  ("(bb) after the definition of "compulsory school age" there are inserted the words ""Convention adoption order" has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1975;".")
  Page 55, line 25, after ("guardian") insert ("means—

  (a) a person appointed by deed or will in accordance with the provisions of the Guardianship of Infants Acts 1886 and 1925 or the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 or by a court of competent jurisdiction to be the guardian of the child, and

  568

  (b)")

  Page 55, line 29, at end insert—
  (" (d) after the definition of "relative" there is inserted the following definition—
  " "voluntary organisation" means a body other than a public or local authority the activities of which are not carried on for profit." ")
  Page 55, line 29, at end insert—
  (" 24A. After section 57(1) there is inserted—
  "(1A) In this Act, in relation to Scotland, unless the context otherwise requires—
  "actual custody" means care and possession; and
  "legal custody "means custody.".")
  Page 55, line 40, leave out (" section 7(4) of")
  Page 55, line 41, leave out from (" order ")") to end of line 43 and insert ("for the words from "order" to "Northern Ireland" there shall be substituted the words "(whether made before or after the commencement of this Act),

  (a) under the Children Act 1975;

  (b) under the adoption Act 1958;

  (c) under the Adoption Act 1950 or any enactment repealed by that Act;

  (d) which is an adoption order made in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands; or

  (e) which is an overseas adoption as defined by section 4(3) of the Adoption Act 1968;".")

  Page 56, line 3, leave out ("section 7(4) of")
  Page 57, line 44, at end insert—
  (" (d) the performance of the functions transferred to local authorities by section l(4)(a) of this Act.")
  Page 58, line 6, at end insert ("paragraph (a) of section 1(4) and")
  Page 58, line 22, at end insert—
  ("37A. In section 4(2) for the words" 15(1) to (4) "there are substituted the words" 15(2) and (3)"and the words from" and section 23(5)"to" Part IV of that Act) "are repealed.")
  Page 58, line 27, leave out ("Secretary of State") and insert ("Registrar General")
  Page 59, line 3, at end insert—
  ("40A. In section 9(5), for the words "a specified order or an overseas adoption" there are substituted the words "or a specified order".
  40B. In section 11(1)—

  (a) for the definition of "adoption order" there is substituted the following definition—

  ""adoption order" means an order made under section 7 of the Children Act 1975 as a Convention adoption order;";

  569

  (b) in the definition of "specified order" for the words "section 1 of this Act" there are substituted the words "sections 7(1) and 25 of the Children Act 1975".

  40C. In section 12(2), for the words from "made by virtue of" to "any of those provisions)" there are substituted the words "containing rules made by the Lord Chancellor under subsection (1) of this section".")
  Page 60, line 25, at end insert—
  ("Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (c. 18)
  45A. In section 44(1) for the words "custody of any person" there are substituted the words "care of any person".")
  Page 60, line 25, at end insert—
  (" 45B. In section 50(1) at the end of paragraph (d) there are inserted the following words—
  "or
  (e) proceedings to which section 71(6)(c) of the Children Act 1975 applies (certain applications for revocation and variation of custodianship etc. orders);" ")
  Page 60, line 31, after ("1971") insert ("or section")
  Page 60, line 32, after ("1971") insert ("or section 1(3) or")
  Schedule 4, page 61, line 3, at beginning insert—

  "16 & 17

  The Legitimacy Act 1926.

  Section 1(3).

  Geo. 5.

  Sections 3 to 5.

  c. 60.

  In section 8(2) the words from "and to the taking" to "of a legitimated person".

  In section 11 the definitions of "disposition", "intestate" and "entailed interest ".")

  Page 62, line 8, column 3, leave out (" Section 1(1) ") and insert ("Section 1(1) and (4)")
  Page 62, Line 13, column 3, at end insert—
  (" In section 18(4) the words "but where on such an application the courts appoints a guardian the resolution shall cease to have effect,".")
  Page 62, Line 16, in column 3, at end insert (" and distribution of property, citizenship".
  In section 9(5) the words "or adoption ".")
  Page 62, Line 26, column 3, leave out ("Section 15(6)") and insert ("Section 14(8).
  Section 15(4) and (6).").—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment (Privilege) made.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, before moving the final stage of this Bill, I wonder whether your Lordships will allow me to say with real sincerity
  570
  how grateful we are to a number of Members on all sides of your Lordships' House who have given so much time and thought to improving this Bill. It is perhaps a little unwise to single out certain people but, if I may speak personally. I am very grateful, and so are the Government, for the help given by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and also by the noble Lords, Lord Sandys, Lord Elton, Lord Wigoder, and also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, to whom we always listen with the greatest attention because, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, pointed out, he has special experience in this field. I hope your Lordships will not feel it amiss if I also include in this list my personal thanks—and it is a very real debt of gratitude, as your Lordships will know—to my advisers for all that they have done and for the amount of work they have done, often into the early hours. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
  Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Wells-Pest ell.)
  Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am at this moment deputising for my noble friend Lady Young. It is perhaps easier in her absence to say how deeply I feel that we on this side of the House are indebted to her for her very able and immensely industrious leadership. I must apologise for her unavoidable absence, which she has already personally explained in advance to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. We on this side would like to thank the Government for the introduction of this immensely important Bill and to thank also those on all sides who have helped it through the House during all its stages. From our side of the House, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, who has provided such staunch support from over the left shoulder, as it were.
  I should not like the House to feel that the task is complete. I will not weary your Lordships by listing the improvements that have been made during the passage of the Bill, but I think it is worth mentioning that there is still a need for legislation in respect of private fostering and of the children of low-income and unsupported mothers, and also for the protection of mentally handicapped children in hospitals, and a need

  571
  for Parliament to address itself to the difficult question of the accommodation of homeless children, which actually came under notice at the Report stage when we were discussing an Amendment to enable courts to prevent children from returning to homes from which they had been withdrawn, only to find there was nowhere else for them to be sent.
  Your Lordships may also recall that at the same stage, on a Division, we accepted an Amendment which has produced the new Clause 56, which is intended to assist in preventing a repetition of terrible cases like that of Maria Colwell through a breakdown in communications. Some of us, including myself, were alarmed recently by newspaper reports of a similar case for similar reasons in the same area —reports which arose between Report stage and the Third Reading. I have corrsponded with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about this and am grateful for the reply received from him through the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. That, and my further inquiries, have led me to suppose that the cases were not similar and that this is not the place to pursue the matter. However, I cannot leave that passage without reminding your Lordships that there was a twin Amendment, which was withdrawn as a gesture of goodwill to the Government and confidence in their sharing of our aims, which they hoped to achieve by administrative rather than legislative means for which an opportunity was left, legislatively, either here at this stage (which has not been taken up) or in another place. At the moment we have information about care and supervision Orders to be passed to the relevant bodies in the local authorities but not for Orders varying such Orders. This therefore is out of balance, and I hope it will be given close and sympathetic attention in another place.
  Some, but not by any means all, of the areas in which children still have to be protected are outside the scope of the Bill. Some are within it and I hope they will be attended to in another place, because this is probably the last opportunity for five years to do anything for children such as those I have mentioned and also those children who are suspended from school, many of whom at the moment are outside any form of educative control.
  572
  This list underlines the need for a coherent, compassionate and effective family policy at a time when the family is existing in a corrosive and disuniting atmosphere. I would say that no part of this policy, and particularly this Bill, can function without adequate funds behind it. This is a plea we made at the outset. I make it again at the conclusion of our deliberations so that it shall not, like the 1969 Act, suffer from the debilitation of poverty in its administration.
  In wishing this Bill well in its passage through another place, may we ask the other place to attend to our list of omissions, to cherish the aim of avoiding private tragedy on a small but infinitely important scale to children when they are young, to provide adequate funds and, please, to make the task of those who follow us easier by some eventual consolidation, so that we escape from the great tangle in which many of us who are not trained lawyers find ourselves striving every time we try to amend Acts, with whose aims we profoundly sympathise, and for the introduction of which we sincerely thank the Government.
  6.38 p.m.
  Lord WIGODER: My Lords. I believe that we bid a fond farewell to this Bill in the confident knowledge that it has been greatly strengthened during its passage through your Lordships' House, as is only proper. That is due to a number of factors, and perhaps I may be allowed to mention two. One is that those who at an early stage expressed an interest in this Bill have been given the greatest assistance by a number of outside organisations and individuals who have spent their lives working for the protection and welfare of children. They have provided a great deal of information, argument and statistics, all of which has been of the utmost help.
  The second factor is that none of that information would have been of the slightest assistance had it not been for the fact that on the Government Benches there were noble Lords willing to listen to argument, to treat every intervention with the utmost courtesy. and to pay every proper regard to constructive criticism. Whether or not it would be invidious to name the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in this connection, I do not know. If it is, he must

  573
  forgive me for doing so, but he has borne the brunt of the work in this matter. He has at all times—indeed as late as this evening—shown an entirely open mind in listening to argument and dealing with suggestions entirely on their merits. Much of the progress on this Bill has been due to his unremitting efforts, and I know that noble Lords in all parts of the House will want to thank him for the very great help he has rendered in this matter.
  I am only sorry, if I may say so, that on occasions when there have been differences of opinion there have sometimes been Divisions and one view or another has prevailed. On occasions such as these they have been reported in the Press under such headlines as "Government defeated". I am sure that every noble Lord who has been present at any stage of our deliberations will accept that no thought either of sustaining the Government or of defeating them has been present in anyone's mind at any stage during the passage of this Bill. Our sole consideration has been at all times to see to what extent we could strengthen the Bill and preserve and protect the welfare of a substantial number of unhappy and unfortunate children.
  My Lords, as the Bill now goes to another place, perhaps I may be forgiven for referring to just one of the clauses where further consideration might in due course be paid. That is Clause 57 which deals with the representation of minors in court proceedings. There are two observations I would make about this clause. One is in a sense technical. The original clause dealt entirely with the representation of minors in care proceedings, and that clause was therefore properly included in Part III of this Bill which deals with care. The amended clause, which was substituted after a Division in your Lordships' House, deals much more generally with the whole issue of representation of minors in proceedings in adoption, custodianship and care, and ought more logically to be transposed from Part III to some convenient point in Part V of the Bill. That would ensure that any court dealing with custodianship or adoption matters did not overlook this particular clause.
  There is a more substantial matter that I would wish to raise about the clause in its present form. It arose as a result of
  574
  an Amendment which, as your Lordships will remember, was duly carried. I was one of those who spoke for the Amendment and voted for it. I suspect that there are other noble Lords in the same position as I am who did that because we regarded the Amendment as vastly superior to the original clause without being entirely happy in our minds about some of its consequences. Among those consequences are two in particular. One is that the new clause perhaps gives an unwise priority to representation in contested proceedings, when I think it has been the experience of many that it is the uncontested proceedings which need to be watched with particular care.
  The other consideration is that undoubtedly when Clause 57 is implemented it will cause a great strain upon resources. It may be that the Government will consider in another place some Amendment that might make the administration of Clause 57 a little more practicable at this moment. I would only say that if and when they come to do that, I trust they will do so in the spirit of the Amendment your Lordships carried rather than in the spirit of the original clause, which I certainly found and believe many of your Lordships also found to be somewhat unsatisfactory in regard to the importance of the child being represented at various stages of proceedings under this Bill. It is clear that the Bill as a whole will constitute a great strain upon resources, not merely financial resources but resources of manpower particularly in the social services. It may be that the Bill will have to be introduced gradually and in stages. If that be so it would, I am sure, be acceptable to your Lordships. It is far better that the Bill should be introduced by stages and be able to be implemented thoroughly than that it should be introduced too hastily with the result that, as we saw with the Children and Young Persons Act, its administration becomes entirely unsatisfactory.
  The only other observation I would make, my Lords, is that this is a Bill which breaks much new ground. The Department of Health and Social Security will no doubt want to monitor its progress with the greatest possible care particularly over the first year or two of its life. I hope with some confidence that if it is thought necessary at a later stage that any

  575
  Amendments should be introduced in order still further to protect the children who are the subject of this Bill, the Government will not hesitate to return to your Lordships' House to introduce them.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I hope it will not be thought an impertinence on the part of a lawyer speaking from the Cross-Benches if I say how impressive it has been to see the extraordinary width and range of expertise that has been brought to bear from all parts of your Lordships' House to improve a most important measure of deep social import. It would clearly be an impertinence and invidious to mention any individual other than the noble Lord in Waiting, Lord Wells-Pestell, who has had responsibility for the conduct of this Bill; but as I have myself been a recipient of his kindness and courtesy and extraordinary mastery of this measure I hope I may be allowed to add my tribute to what has been said about him. Even when he has obviously disapproved deeply of what your Lordships have been doing to the Bill he has never failed to remain unruffled, courteous and patient.
  I want to say only one word about a matter which has been recurrent during the course of discussion of this Bill. That is that it is a particularly blatant example of legislation by reference, and in a sphere where that is particularly objectionable; namely, where a measure must be used not only by lawyers but by laymen over a wide range in society. The noble Lord in Waiting on a number of occasions has turned away wrath by saying that it is proposed to follow up this Bill with a consolidation measure. I desire to add only this word of warning. When at the beginning of this Session I saw the programme of consolidation it seemed to me quite impossible that the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills could cope with it. In fact we have managed to keep up with the work, but that is only because the Law Commission have suffered printing difficulties and difficulties in finding draftsmen. But it would be unreal to imagine that there is no limit to the work of consolidation that can be handled by the Joint Committee.
  To be frank, the reason why we have the Bill in this form is that it suits the Government business managers. I do not
  576
  want to say anything harsh about Government business managers; they are very necessary for the progress of legislation and in any event they are apt to be starved of affection. But of course it suits them very well to have a measure of this kind which can be subject to only limited amendment and then to have a consolidation measure which is not amended at all but sent at once to the Joint Committee. I suggest that in a matter of this kind, particularly when there may be some delay in consolidation, there ought to be brought in a compendious Bill to amend and consolidate. It would then be immediately subject to easy handling by all persons concerned, lay and lawyers. I suggest with all the force at my command that the kind of course that has been followed with this Bill, although we are extremely grateful for it and more than grateful for the way in which the noble Lord has handled it, should not be repeated.
  Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, may I add my thanks to the noble Lord for the extraordinarily skilful and knowledgeable manner in which he has dealt with this Bill. I have spent approaching 30 years of my life upon either children's work or social work and I do not think I have ever heard anybody who has showed such understanding and knowledge of the subject as the noble Lord. Therefore, I should like to thank him very much. I should also like to thank those who have so kindly agreed to the changes which will make all the difference to the Scottish adoption societies. Speaking now as a representative of Scotland in this House, we are most grateful for what has been done. I hope very much that the Bill will have as good a reception in another place as it has had in your Lordships' House, because it is a great step forward in the legislation on this subject.
  Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I make three small points. First of all, with everybody else I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for all that he has done, and with our thanks to him I should like to join our thanks to all those voluntary societies, groups and individuals who have done so much to put each one of us, and myself in particular, thoroughly in the picture about what the Government are doing in this

  577
  very new field of legislation, where otherwise we might have been thoroughly lost.
  My second point is that in trying to find my way through the Bill, very often I found myself immersed in deep fog, for the simple reason that I plunged into the situation which has been so well described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale; I just could not find my way through the other legislation which has to be referred to if one wishes to know what is going on. If I found myself lost, the unfortunate persons who are to follow us and who have no experience at all of legislation will be lost indeed when they plunge into this field. Let us, please, have legislation in the Bill itself rather than legislation by reference.
  The third matter relates to one fear that I have. I voted strongly for the Children Bill of 1969 because I thought it was an excellent Bill. And so it was. However, it fell completely into confusion through lack of money. Money is a word at which we all quiver at this moment. Money is a very sad subject. Nevertheless, money will be needed for this Bill— and in quite large amounts. It must come from somewhere. It must come either from the Government, who are desperately short of it, or from local authorities, who possibly are even more desperately short of it, or from private individuals, who now have very little of it. I am afraid that it will have to come from the Government. I am quite aware of the level of their sympathy in this matter, but, my Lords, sympathy is not enough.
  I have very much in mind something that I saw on a newsreel a number of years ago. A very small country—I will not give its name—was in very considerable difficulties and a very large country, which also I will not name, said how much it sympathised with the small country. The newsreel showed the ambassador of the small country to the large country giving his opinion of this. He said how pleased he was that this vast country, with its enormous resources of men, money and materials, was sending its sympathy. This is very much the position of this Bill and, indeed, of other legislation which has gone through this House and which has not been provided with adequate funds. If I may put this
  578
  last point thoroughly solidly, men, money and materials we do need. Sympathy is very nice, but please provide the other things as well.
  6.55 p.m.
  Lord ELTON: My Lords, by leave of the House, as a result of the correlation of my notes with those of my noble friend Baroness Young, I have made an omission which may seem churlish, and at this late stage I should like to mention my personal gratitude and the gratitude of those on this side of the House to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in person, as opposed to the Government as a whole, to whom we have already expressed our gratitude. He has worked incredibly hard. He has never quite lost patience with us when there was every ground for doing so, and I am, and we are, most grateful to him.
  Lord JANNER: My Lords, before this Bill passes to another place, I hope that noble Lords will not think it wrong for there to be comment from one of the Buck-Benchers who has not participated in the debates. I should like to endorse what has been said in regard to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. He has had a very difficult job on his hands. What I am saying now I have said to him personally on other occasions, that he certainly gives a considerable amount of devoted and dedicated attention to whatever he has on hand. On this occasion, he has certainly shown the same ability to tackle a very difficult job and to tackle it with a considerable amount of goodwill. I think that everybody who has listened to the manner in which he has conducted the debates on this subject, as on others, will be grateful to him, and I should like to endorse what he has said about other Members on all sides of your Lordships' House who have spoken and who have assisted in this matter.
  If I may make two comments, as I have sat here and listened to the debates which have taken place on this subject, the interesting fact which I have noted is that in the turmoil that is taking place throughout the world, when people are fighting each other and indulging in violence and ignoble acts, this House has spent a considerable amount of time and energy on and has shown deep concern about a subject which affects children. When one

  579
  reads the newspapers of today or hears of the events in which children are being slaughtered and maimed with unconcern by those who arc participating in these acts, I think it would be good for the rest of the world to realise that the concern in regard to children which has been shown in our Parliament and among our people is a very deep one and should be an indication to others to follow suit. One of the many aspects of our life in this country about which we have cause to feel contented, whatever our views may be on the size of the issue, is that we have this deep concern for a matter of tremendous importance to those who are concerned with working for the new generation.
  As a practising lawyer, may I also say one or two words to endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has brought to our attention. I have had the privilege of working in the Consolidation Committee for about 30 years, and I should like to pay tribute to him for the manner in which he has taken the chair. He has done so much better than some, and certainly equal to anybody, in the manner in which he has conducted the proceedings. That is why he has managed in the Committee to get through the work that he anticipated would take much longer. He did not realise that his ability to carry on the chairmanship in the way he did was mainly the reason for our having been able to get through the amount of work that was placed in his hands.
  It is a fact, which people not only in your Lordships' House but in Parliament generally should take into consideration, that legislation has to be based in such a way that lawyers, at least, will not have to spend a considerable amount of time interpreting what is meant. In regard to the legal work of solicitors, the public do not understand that if a payment is made a considerable proportion of it is in respect of research work that has to be done in regard to the various matters which are brought to their solicitors' attention.
  What is the biggest bugbear? The biggest bugbear for the average solicitor is legislation by reference. It is very difficult, particularly in a branch of the profession which is general and in which
  580
  the individuals concerned have to deal with different matters from hour to hour, when a solicitor has to wade through Acts which refer to other Acts. It is practically impossible for a layman ever to understand what it is all about and, if I may say so with the greatest respect to my colleagues—and speaking on behalf of myself, at times—it is extremely difficult for us to wade through all that work. It is bad enough to have to deal with case law and to examine cases, but to be burdened with first having to go through an Act which refers to other Acts is something which should be avoided, for the practical reason that clients might be saved an expense which otherwise they would have to meet.
  If I may say so with respect. what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has suggested is something which might be taken into full consideration by those who draft the Bills, and possibly a Bill could be introduced which would include the material of the proposals without having to refer to many other Acts. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that it was not quite an intrusion at the last stage of the proceedings on this Bill to express those viewpoints. In my view, the Government have done an extremely good job. I do not agree with every portion of the Bill, but certainly to have dealt with this matter in the way in which it has been dealt with on both sides of the House is something about which we should all be grateful to those who have participated in the debate.
  Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I should like to thank and support the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for what he has said about Clause 57. Whatever is decided in another place, I hope it will come to the conclusion that the time has come for children who need it to be represented as people in their own right.
  Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, as one who will have the difficult task of implementing this Bill, but who has also had the privilege of sitting and listening to the wise counsel and advice on both sides of the House during the passage of the Bill, I should like to make just one point. Perhaps I should speak personally in this regard. When I try in my court to read this Bill and to implement it, it would be of enormous

  581
  help to me, and no doubt to the social services people and to the clerks of our courts and other magistrates who are not legally qualified, to have a layman's guide to the Bill. I imagine that in time such a guide will be provided. I certainly welcome the whole of the Bill as it is now amended, and I am sure it will be of enormous benefit to all the children of our country.
  On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

  BEEF PREMIUMS (PROTECTION OF PAYMENTS) ORDER 1975
  7.7 p.m.
  Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move, That the Beef Premiums (Protection of Payments) Order 1975, laid before the House on 19th March, be approved. The noble Lord said: The Order provides for various conditions to be observed when cattle and beef carcases are certified for payment of a premium in accordance with Community arrangements for supporting beef producers. Together with existing statutory powers, the provisions of the Order will enable the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce to ensure that the various administrative requirements attaching to premium payments are met.
  Your Lordships will know that in August 1974 the Council of Ministers adopted a proposal by the United Kingdom Government and introduced on a temporary basis a scheme of direct premium payments to beef producers. This was a significant development. It indicated a departure from the doctrine that producer prices for beef should be maintained at given levels primarily through intervention buying. In November the Community took a further important decision enabling the United Kingdom Government to make additional variable payments to beef producers, again on a temporary basis. The combined effect of these two schemes undoubtedly provided very real help to United Kingdom producers at a time when market prices were severely depressed throughout the Community.
  Our experience over those difficult months convinced us that we should continue to press in the Council of Ministers for the adoption of similar direct pay
  582
  ments to producers on a continuing basis. As your Lordships will know, the Minister of Agriculture was able to persuade his colleagues to agree. As a result Member States, including the United Kingdom, will be paying premium on a headage basis in 1975–76 and the same Member States will also be given the option of adopting the variable premium. These premiums have been incorporated as an integral part of the new beef régime. To make direct payments to beef producers in order to raise their total returns to assured levels is not of course a novel idea for us in this country. For many years until 1973 we operated very successfully under the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme arrangements which were basically very similar to the new scheme. We were indeed very fortunate last August that the administrative machinery of the old Fatstock Guarantee system not only remained in existence, but was capable of administering the new EEC premiums at remarkably short notice. We were able to apply to the new scheme the essential procedures with which our producers and the beef trade had become familiar over the years. In consequence, the EEC and national premiums we are now running are based on exactly the same form of certification by qualified fatstock officers and use virtually the same certification standards as we had under the Fatstock Guarantee arrangements.
  Now that the premiums are established as a permanent part of the EEC beef support system, the Intervention Board, who have the responsibility for administering them need to have similar statutory means of control to those which governed the Fatstock Guarantee arrangements. Some of the necessary controls are already available in existing legislation. The Order that is now before your Lordships provides the remaining controls which are considered to be essential for the proper protection of public expenditure on beef premiums in 1975–76. It is framed in such a way as to apply also to any further Community schemes which may provide for similar direct payments to beef producers.
  The Order provides the Intervention Board with full powers to require the marking of any animal or carcase that is certified for premium. Such marking is

  583
  essential to prevent resubmission for certification. The Order also provides for the keeping and production of records and the power to obtain evidence of suspected offences. I should perhaps explain that an authorised officer already has the necessary right of entry to premises for those purposes by virtue of the Common Agricultural Policy (Agricultural Produce) (Protection of Community Arrangements) (No. 2) Order of 1973.
  The Order further provides—and this is the main respect in which the present scheme differs from the Fatstock Guarantee Scheme—for the slaughter of a certified animal to be required within a specified period. Under the Community Regulations, payment of premium depends on slaughter, but to accommodate our own livestock marketing system the regulations provide a period of grace within which slaughter has to take place. That period has up to now been 15 days, but in the light of experience over recent months it is the intention to extend the permissible period to 28 days in new Community Regulations due to come into effect in May. The Order allows for such variations in the period. My Lords, I trust that I have provided sufficient explanations of the reasons for and the provisions of the Order and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Beef Premiums (Protection of Payments) Order 1975, laid before the House on 19th March, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
  7.12 p.m.
  Viscount AMORY: My Lords, as one who, about two decades ago, used to have to struggle with these matters, I should like to say, without now feeling competent to comment in detail on what is being done, that in general it seems to me that what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has told us must be good news and this must be a sensible and improved system. Anyone who knows anything about farming appreciates that it is impossible for fanners to change their production policy overnight. Over the last two or three years, we have had some dramatic evidence of how quickly prices change. Therefore, it must be an advantage for the price support system to be as flexible as possible. The Govern
  584
  ment are to be commended on what they have succeeded in doing with regard to the EEC, where the policy was not very flexible. I will not dare to comment further, because my noble friend on the Front Bench is far more up to date than I am and will speak with far greater knowledge and authority.
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lord, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining this Order. On a personal note, I should like to thank him for bearing with me in the past when I have haggled with him over this Order. There are three points which I should like to make. To begin with, this matter is desperately complicated. Although I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has an IQ of 140, and his civil servants have IQs of 139, we poor graziers probably have IQs lower than that and, after all, this Order is for us. I hate to say this, but I do not think there is one fanner in a hundred who can understand it. However, I must admit that I understand the problems of the Government, which stem from being half in and half out of the Community.
  My Lords, I have two questions which I should like to ask. First, there is the question of publishing target prices, which the noble Lord is doing three months in advance. If it is at all possible for him to publish the target prices a little earlier, this will be more than appreciated by the farming community. I understand the reason why he cannot, but if in the future circumstances permit of the publishing of these market prices a little earlier, it would be much appreciated. I would ask the noble Lord another question but, if I may, I will put it in the form of an example. We have the following problem. The month is September, so the target price has not yet been announced. If, in total, my fixed and variable premiums come to £4, and the average market price is £13, can the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, tell me what the buying-in price will be? Secondly, may I ask the same question in exactly the same form, but on this occasion the fixed and variable premiums will be £5. Lastly, and I hope the noble Lord will bear with me, may I ask the same question again, but this time the variable and fixed premiums are £6.
  7.17 p.m.
  Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it would be an exaggeration, if not a gross inaccuracy, to say that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has introduced this Order to a crowded House, but for all that, it does not mean to say that it is not very important for those who are affected by it. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Amory said, this is an improvement on the existing system. Indeed I would go along with him entirely in saying that this system as incorporated in the European Community is an improvement on the previous European Community system.
  The Order introduced today by the noble Lord is really an Order to protect the payment of Government funds, and to protect the payment of EEC funds. This is a perfectly normal practice. Behind all this is a method of putting stability back into the beef market. I congratulate the noble Lord and the Government on seeing the light, because we went through a disastrous period 12 months ago when, as the noble Lord will remember, all the support for the beef market was removed, there was no deficiency system and no intervention system. Consequently, those producing beef were at a severe disadvantage. It has taken a long time, but at least the Government have put a support system back into the beef production cycle. I congratulate them on it. It is what we invited them to do for a very long time. They have now put back a system which is really the belt and braces, because the Government have incorporated the headage premiums, the variable premiums and also the intervention system. Therefore, this is an amalgam of what used to be the old EEC system and, up to a point, what used to be the deficiency payment system; but I do not believe it is a total guarantee, and I will explain why.
  First, of course, it lasts for only 12 months, which is a great drawback. On the very day when the Government have published a White Paper called Food from our own Resources, which looks to the future, as one must in agricultural matters, over a period of five years or so, to have an Order introduced to allow the protection of beef for a matter of 12 months is really inadequate. Anyone involved in the rearing of beef, which takes, after all, a matter of some three years from conception to the time it is on
  586
  the table, knows that a 12 months system of guarantee is inadequate. One appreciates the reason why this was done, but one does wonder what happens after this 12 months period is over.
  The other reason why I feel it is not a total guarantee—I may be wrong here, and perhaps the noble Lord will be able to explain why—is that it depends on how the intervention system will operate. I hope the noble Lord will be able to explain this a little. This is a complicated matter, because you have target prices, guide prices, intervention prices, buying-in prices, and then you have headage payments and variable payments and percentages and coefficients; it really becomes very difficult. But as I understand it, the target price and the intervention price are the same thing, at £22·85 per cwt. There is also a headage payment of 28 units of account, which is £1·50 per cwt.; the headage payment is made on all animals going for slaughter, and that sum is receivable from FEOGA funds. If the market price and the head-age payment do not achieve the target price, then the Government can make up the difference by a variable premium, and that variable premium is payable not out of FEOGA funds but out of Government resources. However, the variable premiums and the headage payment average over a year must together not exceed 80 units of account, which is £4·42.
  The question I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, which is a very similar question to the one asked by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley, is, what happens if the market price drops by more than £4·42 below the target price? As I understand it, either the intervention system will operate and the price to the producer will be maintained, or the Minister will, as he has done in the past, refuse to use intervention. If this is so, as the premia cannot be increased above £4·42, so the producer's returns will drop in direct relation to the drop in the market price. This is what we had before; and if this happens, of course, producers have no ultimate guarantee. We all hope that the market price will not drop by that amount, but nobody knows whether it will.
  If this is to be a proper guarantee— and a guarantee, after all, is not wanted when things go right but when they go

  587
  wrong—I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that the Minister will use intervention; and I would ask him whether under this scheme he is obliged to use intervention if this happens, or whether he merely has an option to do so. I think this scheme is another example of our benefiting from being in the European Community. FEOGA's liability for the headage payment is, I think, £47 million. I wonder whether the noble Lord can say what is the liability of the United Kingdom Government and what is its anticipated cost in the course of a year. The two figures are not necessarily the same figures.
  The Government will obviously have taken note of the remarks made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. I would ask the noble Lord whether he is sure that the Government have adequate powers of access to books and records. Article ll(l)(b) allows the officer to take possession of any book or record. It does not give him the right to enter land to do so. This was one of the points which the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments produced. I understand that the officer has not got the right under this particular Order, but that he has under the Agriculture Act 1957. But that permits the officer only to enter land and not to enter buildings. If one may take a supposition, supposing a man suspected of a misdemeanour in fact keeps his records not on his farm, not in a building on his farm, supposing he is a director of, say, a plastics company, and he keeps his records in the town in the offices of this company. The officer looking into these regulations is entitled to access to the books. Is he entitled to access to a company's premises in a town, simply because that is where the person happens to keep his books? It may seem an unnecessary question, but if there are those who are out to defraud it is precisely against those people that the Government should be prepared to take the necessary precautions. I think there may be much in what the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments said, that these protections should be put in the Order. I wonder whether the noble Lord has taken note of that fact, and, if so, is he able to say whether in the future the Government are likely to put these protections in an Order?
  7.28 p.m.
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords for the reception they have given to this Order. I am particularly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, for his remarks, which I shall pass on to my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. I am also grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for his welcome, which I think, in many ways, was slightly more qualified. I think we must admit that we inherited a rather difficult situation when we were first in the EEC. I think my right honourable friend has done very well to persuade the Community to adopt the variable premium system, as well as keeping on the intervention system, to which this Order gives rise.
  I shall do my best to answer the various points which noble Lords have raised. First of all, if I might deal with the points of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, I agree that this is a very complicated Order. It took me some time to understand it myself, so I can sympathise with what the noble Lord said. I may say that a revised leaflet describing the scheme is now being prepared by the Intervention Board; it will give full details of the scheme, including the provisions of this Order. Notices will also be prominently displayed, as appropriate, at auction markets and slaughterhouses drawing attention to the main provisions of the Order.
  We shall, of course, take note of what the noble Lord said about the target price. With regard to his point about the buying-in price, the average intervention price for the current marketing year is £22·85 per live hundredweight. Prices for qualities and grades will vary slightly around that figure. The buying-in price is the intervention price less the total amount of premium; that is, the headage payment plus the variable supplement Therefore, if the total premium is £4 per live hundredweight the average buying-in price will be £18·85 per live hundred-weight. Similarly, with premiums of £5 the buying-in price will be £17·85, and with premiums of £6 the buying-in price will be £16·85.
  The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, raised various points which I shall do my best to answer. He asked about the length of the Order. The Order is indefinite

  589
  but the payments are reviewed annually in Brussels and are subject to agreement by the Council of Ministers. This Order only determines that payments are not misapplied. I can also assure the noble Earl that the intervention system will be available for use as a safety net.
  Earl FERRERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean by that that the Government are obliged to, and will, use the intervention system if the market price drops to a level which, with the addition of the headage and variable premium, will not bring the return to the producer up to the level of the target price?
  Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, we have that flexibility that the two systems can operate. We now come to the total amount of the premium. I think the noble Earl asked me what would be the Government's liability and the anticipated expense of the premium. The anticipated total amount of the premium cannot be determined exactly, as this will of course depend on market prices. However, I can say that since the scheme started on 5th August 1974 the total amount of premium paid, including the supplementary premium introduced on 18th November 1974, is approximately £59 million, of which £39½ million has been paid in England and Wales. Further, £10 million has been paid in Scotland, and £9½ million has been paid in Northern Ireland. I hope that that gives the noble Earl some idea of the amounts likely to be required in the future.
  Then there is the question of the powers of entry. As the noble Earl said, these powers of entry flow from Statutory Instrument No. 288 of March 1973, as the noble Earl may remember as he was in Office at that time. The relevant clause is Article 4, which allows any officer authorised by the Board to enter upon land. These wider powers have been supplemented by Article 11 of this Order when an officer not only wishes to enter but to take possession as well. But in this case, under this Order, he must carry a warrant which he must have with him, and he must also have authority under Article 11(2), from the Board or the Minister of Agriculture, or in Scotland the Secretary of State, or the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. That is the position with regard to powers.
  590
  I thought that the question of the extent of these powers was an interesting point, which the noble Earl raised when he said that a farm or collection of farms might have offices in a town; and he also referred to a plastics company with premises in a town. Here I am informed that the question whether "land" in an enactment includes buildings on land, is one which must be collected from the context. In this case the land, I am informed, could be used for production, storage, grading, packing, slaughter, or sale of specified commodities. Most of these activities take place under cover in permanent buildings, and some of them must, of course, so take place. There is, therefore, no doubt that the power to enter upon land extends to the power to enter into buildings used for the purposes thereof. It is quite clear that if, for example, the building in the town was being used for sale—and sale, of course, can include an office which prepares invoices and deals with the books, and so on—then, indeed, it could be entered by an inspector with a warrant and with authority to take possession of the books. I hope that that has answered the various points raised by noble Lords, and I beg to move.
  Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am sorry to be tedious about this, but could I ask one question? I do not wish to put the noble Lord in a spot, but I am still unclear about one thing. The system operates at the moment with variable premiums and headage payments on the one side, and the ability to use intervention on the other. The question on which I should like a clear answer, if possible, is whether the Government are obliged to use intervention if the market price drops too far, or do they merely have an option to do so? If the noble Lord cannot give me that answer straight away, perhaps he would be kind enough to write to me about it; but I should be grateful to have the answer.
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am informed that the answer is, Yes, but I shall go into it more carefully and write to the noble Earl.
  Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, can I ask one more question, then I will go away pleased. I am grateful for the noble Lord's answer about this buying-in price. Should the target price

  591
  in the autumn be £20—it is a fairly simple system—and the variable premiums at that time amount to £4, and I am getting £16 in the market, it seems to me on this sum that there is a great case for the wholesaler selling into intervention, because he will then be able, according to my arithmetic, to get about £18·85 if he sells into intervention. I hope that I have understood that correctly. I shall understand if the noble Lord has not understood how I have put it. Perhaps he would like to write to me.
  Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords, I should like to go into that also and write to the noble Lord.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.