Lords Sitting of 5 November 1975

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

ELIZABETH GARRETT ANDERSON HOSPITAL
Lord ABERDARE: 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 have yet made a final decision on the future of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has not yet completed her study of the proposals before her.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this matter is very urgent and that it has been going on for approximately a year? Is he further aware that the children's ward is to close on 17th November and that the maternity home is also threatened with closure? Also, does he appreciate that in these circumstances the hospital finds it difficult, if not impossible, to recruit any new staff? So will he urge on his right honourable friend the need for quick action in taking a decision?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am aware in general terms of the urgency of the situation, and so is my right honourable friend who intends to visit the hospital in the near future—and when I say "the near future", I mean the near future. A decision will follow upon the visit.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think that now, when beds and hospital buildings are short, it would be far better if this hospital could be maintained and given some hope for the future, rather than be allowed gradually to run down?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my right honourable friend is very well aware of the situation, and as I said, will herself be paying a visit to the hospital in the near future.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, will the Government undertake to keep this matter under continuous review, to explore every avenue and to leave no stone unturned in order to come to this overdue decision?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: We shall do even better than that, my Lords.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware not only that the hospital and all those working in it are very deeply concerned, but that those who work voluntarily for that hospital in particular, and who raise funds to provide amenities for it, do not know what to do for the future, or, indeed, for the present? They have funds which they would like to spend in the hospital, but they are unable to do so as they do not know what will be its future.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I fully appreciate the view expressed by the noble Baroness and I know that my right honourable friend will take note of it.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, while not wishing to go once again into all the reasons why this hospital is a very important one, will Her Majesty's Government keep in mind that it is not only the patients who will be affected, for the hospital gives an excellent opportunity for women doctors to take up a consultant's career?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Government are well aware of this virtue of the hospital.

CYPRUS: U.N. GENERAL ASSEMBLY
2.34 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they will make at the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly, when the situation in Cyprus is discussed, to implement the resolutions of the United Nations.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, together with our partners in the Nine, Her Majesty's Government are actively working for the resumption of the intercommunal talks in keeping with United Nations Resolutions and in particular with Security Council Resolution 367 of 1975, which requested the Secretary-General to undertake a new mission of good offices. The action which Her Majesty's Government will take at the forthcoming United Nations General Assembly when the Cyprus item is discussed, probably towards the middle of November, will be determined nearer the time, and will depend on developments. It is our earnest hope that progress will be made towards the resumption of the intercommunal negotiations over the next few weeks.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that many of us are distressed that the British Government have not been able to carry out more fully their guarantee to Cyprus? Would he endorse the remarks which were made by MacDonald Gordon, the new High Commissioner in Cyprus, last Monday? Referring to the Government, he said:
"It is their sincere hope that a solution may be found based on independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity".
Will that be the purpose of Her Majesty's Government at the meeting of the United Nations?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I cannot accept that the United Kingdom Government have not made
1138
every effort to assist in the situation which obtains in Cyprus through no fault of their own. Indeed, our commitment was to consult and that we have done extensively. At one time it seemed as if our action would bear fruit. It is clear to us that the solution to the Cyprus crisis rests, in the first place, with the communities on the island and then will be arrived at through an international effort, headed, as it is now, by the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In that initiative, we are taking a very active part. On the second point raised by my noble friend, I do indeed take note of the views that he has quoted and I see no reason to dissent from what Mr. Gordon has said on the matter.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that our many friends among the Greeks and the Greek Cypriots are anxiously waiting for the Government to take some initiative in this matter, particularly as we, with Greece and Turkey, were the three chairmen who guaranteed the integrity of Cyprus?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, of course, my Lords, and so are other elements in Cyprus anxious to support any initiative that will suit them. We see this as a problem, in the first instance, for our Greek and Turkish friends on the island to come together for inter-communal talks. It is an inter-communal difficulty and at least in the first stage the solution rests there. Thereafter, as the United Nation's Secretary-General has abundantly shown with very strong support from the representative of Her Majesty's Government in the United Nations, a conference to give substantive effect to an agreement on the island seemed to us to be the only avenue leading to a durable solution of this very difficult situation.

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY: UK REPRESENTATION
Baroness ELLES: 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 how many women have been appointed as United Kingdom representatives or alternate representatives to the Thirtieth Session of the United Nations General Assembly.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the four representatives and their alternates this year are Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers or senior members of the United Kingdom Mission to the United Nations, none of whom happen, this year, to be women.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, while not particularly thanking the noble Lord for that very unsatisfactory reply, may I draw his attention to a recommendation made last year by the Working Group of the Commission on the Status of Women, which demanded of Governments that they should ensure that women should take part in policy formulation at international level, and also to the fact that that recommendation was endorsed by the United Kingdom delegation, and further endorsed in the General Assembly resolution last year and again this year at the World Conference of International Women's Year in Mexico? Could the Minister kindly state what measures he is to take to implement these resolutions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that very helpful supplementary question, with which we entirely agree—there is, of course, complete bipartisan agreement on this—as she will know, successive Administrations have specially attempted to include women in delegations of this kind. Very often it has proved possible, under the criteria, to do so, but sometimes, as has happened this year for a number of reasons, it has not been possible. I believe that that situation occurred in 1973; but, happily, it was not so in 1972, when the noble Baroness was a distinguished representative of this country in New York, or last year, when my equally distinguished noble friend Lady Gaitskell was a representative and a member of the delegation.
As to the promulgations which the noble Baroness instanced, I can only say that we entirely agree and that we make every effort to live up to these agreements to which we have enthusiastically acceded. The noble Baroness referred in particular to the World Conference of International Women's Year. That was the reference, was it not? There was a very strong delegation under the able leadership of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office,
1140
whose name is perpetuated in this House. It was led jointly by that very able Member of the other place, and of the Government, and the lady Member for Redbridge, North and consisted of 10 members, seven of whom were very formidable women indeed.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, despite the levity with which we have so far treated this Question, is the noble Lord really saying that there is not a single woman in his Party who could represent the Government at the United Nations this year, when countries like Burundi, Nepal and Paraguay all have women within their delegations? Is he really saying this?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not really saying anything more than the noble Baroness's Administration said in 1973 in similar circumstances. As to levity, I hope that my levity might be more effective than the noble Baroness's seriousness.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord know that there has been grave disappointment in the women's organisations which have been participating in International Women's Year here and all over the world, that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who has been such a distinguished member of the United Nations for so many years, was not allowed to go again this year? I find the noble Lord's reply not only very disappointing but quite feeble, because, in fact, there are on all sides of this House and in the other place, first-class women who could do the job extremely well, and on this occasion it would have been right and proper that there should have been a woman in the delegation representing the United Kingdom in International Women's Year.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, again, I do not dissent from what the noble Baroness has said, except perhaps about my approach to this question. I would hope it was one of robust fortitude, as befits anyone who has to answer Questions in this or in any other place of the type we have had this afternoon. We, like the previous Administrations, are sincerely concerned that there should be the utmost possible opportunity for women, as much as men,

1141
to serve on these high level delegations. In most years it has been found possible to do this. This year, as in 1973—and nobody would blame the Administration of the day in 1973 that they failed to do it, any more than we did this year—it has not been found possible.
As to criteria, if we could get the criteria of appointment right—and we believe we have it—then it becomes a matter of actuarial availability. Unfortunately (and I deeply regret this) at the level to which the noble Baroness refers —Parliamentary and public service of this kind—far too few women have found it possible or have chosen so far to come forward. That is a fact; it is an actuarial fact. But that does not affect our desire, and I am sure that of our predecessors, to see to it that both the opportunity and the appointment of women is equal in every way to that of men.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, can the noble Lord very kindly tell us why it was not found possible?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it would take some time to go into that, and I think the noble Baroness is aware that the availability of men candidates, as it were, is greatly in excess to those of women, for reasons I have given. We are endeavouring to improve on this situation all the time, and it would be invidious to go into details as to the difficulties we have encountered.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, should not the noble Lord adopt as his criterion cherchez la femme?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Not too many at the same time, my Lords!
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister a rather more serious question? Is it not the fact that we have had an illustration in this House of the extraordinary ability of women on our own Front Bench and women on the Front Bench opposite? Is it not quite clear that there are women who are capable of representing us at the United Nations equally with any men who are there?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is abundantly true and, indeed, a great many women Members of
1142
this House, and of the other place, do represent us in high level places, and they do it with very great ability and effectiveness. However, if the noble Lord would look around and count heads he will see that the availability so far of women is considerably less than the availability of men.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, has the noble Lord approached the Status of Women Commission which I am sure could provide him with the necessary candidate for such a job? Will the noble Lord realise that it is not good enough merely to put women on the Status of Women Commission because all the decisions made there have to go through ECOSOC, which says it never has time to consider the resolutions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, My Lords, I entirely accept that.
Baroness SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that knowing him as I do I would not suggest for one moment that he discriminates against women, but is he satisfied that his Civil Service advisers are aware of the fact that women feel very strongly about this matter? Do these advisers—generally men—need a little prodding from him, because there is deep-rooted prejudice, and it is quite clear that throughout the centuries the male advisers of the Government are prejudiced against women?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if there is prejudice it is certainly not among Members of Her Majesty's Government, but I should not say that it exists in Civil Service circles. We are committed enthusiastically to legislation and to administration which seeks to promote completely equality of opportunity, of appointment and of training for women as for men, and we are determined to make an effective job of this.
I say once more that so far, unfortunately, it has been the availability of women—not the fund of ability, which is there to be tapped—which has been in question. But we look to the future for an equal availability of men as of women for appointment to this kind of delegation.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the Question, but perhaps at some stage the noble Lord can let us know in writing what organisations

1143
were approached in order to get women candidates, because women do not of themselves come forward for these appointments, as he will know. If the noble Lord could tell us which organisations he asked for candidates, we should be grateful.

ICE CREAM: REGISTRATION OF SUPPLIERS
2.48 p.m.
Lord JANNER: 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 steps can be taken to introduce legislation to oblige all persons manufacturing or selling ice cream, including vendors of ice cream from mobile vans or other vehicles to be registered with the appropriate local authority, so that steps can be taken to inspect the premises where the ice cream is made and to ensure reasonable standards of hygiene in the public interest.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Food and Drugs Act 1955 requires premises, other than catering premises, schools and clubs, where ice cream is manufactured, stored or sold for human consumption to be registered by the appropriate local authority. Such premises and persons working in them are subject to the requirements of the Food Hygiene (General) Regulations 1970. Mobile ice cream vans must comply with the requirements of the Food Hygiene (Markets, Stalls and Delivery Vehicles) Regulations 1966 which relate to the cleanliness of vehicles, persons and equipment.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, does my noble friend realise that there are a large number of convictions in magistrates' courts against street vendors who are not licensed for selling ice cream, and that there is no control over those individuals so far as registration is concerned? Is my noble friend aware that this means that the premises in which the ice cream is manufactured or prepared for such sales have not been examined and, indeed, cannot be examined because no-
1144
body knows where they are? Is it not important, from the point of view of public health, that these people should be compelled to register in the same way as those compelled to do so under local by-laws? Can my noble friend make a general rule for that purpose?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend speaks of compulsion. He has also informed your Lordships that prosecutions are in fact taking place, which I presume is compulsion under law. I really do not see what more we can do than apply the law where we find that it has been broken.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that if the proposition put forward by my noble friend Lord Janner were carried into effect, a tremendous number of licences would have to be issued because of the amount of ice cream which is being made in many homes, due to the availability of the necessary ingredients?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his informative interjection.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to reconsider this matter? What I was driving at was that people are charged, not with not being registered but with not having licences to sell in the streets; and consequently they have obviously not been registered. Is he aware that many local authorities have special by-laws to provide for the registration of every establishment used for the manufacture for sale of ice cream, and will he see to it that, in view of the fact that some local authorities do not have such a by-law, there will be consideration given to making it compulsory throughout the land, apart entirely from the by-laws themselves?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord has obviously found a loophole in the legislation, and I shall bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord JANNER: I am much obliged to my noble friend.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, in order to put the matter into perspective, can the noble Lord tell us how many cases of poisoning there have been due

1145
to ice cream which has been made on dirty premises? I have no idea how many of these cases there are, whether it is a large number or a small number.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the situation is that once upon a time, prior to 1959, when legislation in regard to this matter came in, ice cream was a very suspect food. Subsequent upon the Ice Cream (Heat Treatment) Regulations 1959 the situation has improved markedly, and ice cream is regarded as a safe food. No recorded cases of food poisoning have been noted in recent years.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he will be good enough not to wait until people are poisoned, but see to it that the law is introduced before that opportunity arises?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that although ice cream may not have killed anybody, a lot of it has not done anyone any good? So will he put no obstacle in the way of the manufacture of ice cream from milk, instead of the curious ingredients which at present go into much of the hygienic stuff which is sold over the counter?
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, on this matter of the inspection of premises, can the noble Lord assure us that on this anniversary of Guy Fawkes' Day his noble friend the Captain of the Yeomen of the Guard and the Yeomen of the Guard made a thorough inspection of these premises before we assembled?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I suggest that that is another question; and, what with women and ice cream, I suggest we move to the next business.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, I beg to move that the Fifth Report from the Select Committee be now agreed to.
Moved, That the Fifth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
The Report was as follows:
1. CONTINUITY OF SESSIONAL COMMITTEES
Following a recommendation by the European Communities Committee, the Committee have considered means of overcoming the difficulties inherent in the appointment of Sessional Committees on a sessional basis. These difficulties arise because of the time taken to set up committees in a new session. As a result of this it may be necessary either to delay the consideration of urgent business or to contravene the requirements of the procedure of the House by calling together the members of the Committee unofficially before they have been formally appointed by the House. This consideration applies to Sessional Committees generally not simply to the European Communities Committee.
Formerly, it was the practice of both Houses to appoint their Sessional Committees for the session only. However, the Commons have recently begun to appoint the majority of such Committees for a Parliament. There is, therefore, precedent for departing from what, till recently, has been a well-established rule. The Committee do not think that it is necessary to go as far as the Commons have done. In their opinion it would be sufficient to provide that the orders of appointment of committees should remain in effect notwithstanding the prorogation of Parliament until the House makes fresh orders of appointment in the succeeding session. This would enable committees to conduct their business from the first clay of a new session. However, the Committee attach great importance to the desirability of appointing committees as soon as possible in the new session, thus providing an early opportunity for a review of their membership—a point on which the House has recently placed emphasis by introducing the system of rotation. The Committee are of the opinion that their recommendation should apply to all Sessional Committees with the exception of the Appeal and Appellate Committees and the Committee of Selection.
In order to effect the change a new Standing Order will be necessary. The Committee recommend that it should be in the following terms:
The orders of appointment of the following committees and any of their subcommittees shall remain in force and effect, notwithstanding the prorogation of Parliament, until such time as the House or Committee makes further orders of appointment in the next succeeding session—

Consolidation Bills Committee

European Communities Committee

House of Lords Offices Committee

1147

Hybrid Instruments Committee

Leave of Absence and Lords' Expenses Committee

Personal Bills Committee

Privileges, Committee for

Procedure Committee

Standing Orders (Private Bills) Committee)

Statutory Instruments Committee

2. PRIVATE BILL PROCEDURE: INTERVIEW
The Committee have considered the practice of the House whereby a Private Bill which has been committed to a Select Committee is subsequently considered at what has been known as the "Interview" where the Chairman of Committees, assisted by his Counsel, goes through those parts of the Bill which were not the subject of a decision by the Select Committee. They consider that, though the Interview serves a useful purpose in complementing the work of Select Committees on Opposed Bills, it suffers from the disadvantage that it has, formally speaking, no procedural existence. In addition, although the amendments made to the Bill are deemed to have been made by the Select Committee, the members of the Select Committee have in general no knowledge of what amendments have been made in their name.
The Committee therefore recommend that, where a Bill has been committed to a Select Committee for consideration usually in respect of certain opposed parts, it should in future be recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee on the understanding that no decision made by the Unopposed Bill Committee should vary a decision made by the Select Committee.
They recommend therefore that Private Bill Standing Order 121 be amended to read as follows:—
121.—(1) There shall be committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee—

(a) every Private Bill against which no Petition has been presented, or if presented has been withdrawn, or which has become unopposed by reason of any of the provisions of Standing Order 113, except any Bill as respects which the Chairman of Committees has in pursuance of Standing Order 92 reported to the House that in his opinion it should be proceeded with as an Opposed Bill:

(b) on recommitment, every Opposed Private Bill in respect of which a report has been made from a Select Committee that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, provided that no decision taken by such a Select Committee may be varied by an Unopposed Bill Committee.

(2) Each Unopposed Bill Committee shall consist of the Chairman of Committees and such Lords as think fit to attend.
3. SHORT DEBATES
The Committee have considered the rules for the conduct of Short Debates. They recommend a new rule to ensure that a Lord does not put down a motion in Part II of "No Day Named" on the Order Paper which
1148
is the same, or substantially the same, as a motion which is already in that Part of the Order Paper.
4. RE-ARRANGEMENT OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER IN THE JOURNALS
The Committee have considered the present practice whereby the daily Attendance Register in the Journals of the House is listed in the form prescribed by the order of seating formerly observed in the House under the Act of Henry VIII of 1539. They recollect that in 1971 they recommended that the names of Lords voting in divisions should be listed alphabetically instead of by reference to seniority as had previously been the case. They recommend that in future the daily Attendance Register should be made up on an alphabetical basis. They also recommend that Lords who have titles higher than those by which they sit in Parliament should be listed alphabetically by such titles.
They therefore propose that Standing Order 8 be amended as follows:—
Leave out all the words after ("the Journals of the House") and insert ("the title or dignity by which such a Lord sits in Parliament shall be added in brackets after such higher title or dignity").
5. STANDING ORDER 38(4): ARRANGEMENT OF BUSINESS ON WEDNESDAYS
The Committee have considered the drafting of Standing Order 38(4) in the light of the fact that the terms of the Standing Order do not allow the variation, on Wednesdays, of orders and notices relating to Public Bills, Measures and Affirmative Instruments. They recommend that the Standing Order be redrafted to allow this, as follows:
(4) On all sitting days except Wednesdays, notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures and Affirmative Instruments shall have precedence over other notices and orders save the foregoing.
(4A) Subject to paragraph (4) the precedence of notices and orders relating to Public Bills, Measures and Affirmative Instruments may be varied on any day, if the convenience of the House so requires.
6. CONSOLIDATION BILLS
The Committee have reconsidered their recommendation in their Second Report of 1970/71 that the Lord Chancellor, whether or not he is moving the discharge of the Order of Recommitment in relation to a Bill which has been referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, should indicate the category into which the Bill falls and should draw the attention of the House to the Report of the Joint Committee.
The practice of the House now is that the Lord Chancellor only draws the special attention of the House to the Joint Committee's Report when it contains a point of special interest to the House. In view of this the Committee wish to modify their recommendation in their Second Report of 1970/71 so as to reflect the present practice followed by the Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MALLAIG HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report

COMMUNITY LAND BILL
2.54 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, that the Bill be now further considered on Report.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 15 [Powers of acquisition and appropriation]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 56:
Leave out Clause 15.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I would refer to a point of which I gave the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor notice yesterday. The note may well have been mislaid overnight, but I hope he has had another one which I sent him just now. At Committee stage we left Clause 15 in the situation where the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor had an open mind, as he put it, as to whether he or my noble friend Lord Colville was right on a technical matter to do with single plots. I do not know whether the noble and learned Lord's mind is still open, is shut or is changed, or whether he would like to tell us about it. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, this matter was discussed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, yesterday, and he moved an Amendment which was carried. That really has overtaken the point which occupied us at Committee stage. The effect of his Amendments, which were carried, was to take all single dwelling-houses outside the acquisition power in Clause 15; so the matter has been resolved at any rate to the satisfaction of the Opposition, but to the dissatisfaction of the Government, and there the matter must presently rest.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Without having the legal training of either my noble friend or the noble and learned Lord, I was not quite sow whether there was anything more to be said about it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Acquisition and appropriation of land]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 55, line 43, leave out ("2").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I now move Amendment No. 57, but with the leave of the House I will speak to Amendment No. 61 as well. The effect of these Amendments would be to restore, in respect of compulsory purchase orders under the Bill relating to development land, the requirements of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Acts or regulations made under it, that the purpose for which the land is required is to be specified. The first Amendment removes the reference to paragraph 2 from sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 4, and is consequential upon the second Amendment, No. 61, which omits paragraph 2 from the Schedule.
The total result is that for all compulsory purchase orders made under the Bill, whether for development land or land for excepted development, the modification to specify the reasons for which the authority propose to acquire the land, instead of the purposes for which the land is required, will be deleted, and the existing procedures will apply. At Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, moved an Amendment which would have had the effect of nullifying the provision, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 4, that a compulsory purchase order under the Bill for development land would not need to specify the purpose of acquisition but would instead have to specify the reasons. In reply I said that the Government were looking again at the provisions of the paragraph, and on this basis Lord Kinnoull withdrew his Amendment. The Government have looked at it again and have accepted the spirit of the Amendment, which is interpreted in the Government Amendments I now put before your

1151
Lordships. I beg to move Amendment No. 57.
The Earl of KINNOULL: Briefly, my Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and to support her Amendments. It is always a great pleasure to hear that an Amendment moved by the Opposition in Committee is ultimately accepted in principle by the Government. It is particularly pleasant on this Bill as so sadly it is all too rare an occasion to have some agreement on the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.0 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 55, line 47, leave out from ("land") to end of line 2 on page 56.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 58. This is a point that we discussed on Committee, and I should like to begin by saying that I am grateful for the letter I received from the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, setting out more fully the Government's view on this matter. It is a rather complicated matter, one on which I am not certain that we have the right answer, and therefore I felt it right to raise it again.
As I understand this part of the Schedule, this paragraph enables a local authority to certify that a particular piece of land is or is not development land. As a consequence of the decision it takes on that, whether or not the Schedule applies to it, the local authority then issues a certificate which cannot be challenged by anyone. The certificate must be confirmed by the Secretary of State. I and my noble friends asked on Committee whether it would be possible for an owner who might feel aggrieved by this decision to have any redress under this part of the Schedule.
As I understand the noble Lord's letter, he is saying, first, that the Government do not foresee there being many, if any, borderline cases. I think it is difficult at this stage to make judgments and to say that there would not be any borderline cases; because it is on the borderline case where the individual would want to challenge the issue of the certificate.
Secondly, the noble Lord says that the opinion of the local authority is absolute in the matter of what is or is not development
1152
land. The point at issue is whether it is absolute decision and whether an individual can challenge that decision. Thirdly, the noble Lord says that the individual can make representations to the Secretary of State asking him not to confirm the decision to certify the land as development land. What I do not quite follow is what happens if the Secretary of State does not agree with the representations made to him and does not want to alter his decision about the certificate. Where does that leave the owner who may have made the representation? It seems to me that he remains directly affected by the issue of the certificate without any redress at all to the courts.
I shall be grateful if the noble Lord can say what is the Government view on a borderline case; whether the local authority can say conclusively that in every case land is development land; and, lastly, what happens to the individual if he makes representations which are not accepted by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if this Amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 59 and 60.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, this is a point that we went over in Committee and also one on which Iwrote to her. She raised first the question of borderline cases. This is the borderline on the definition of relevant development. As I said in Committee and in my letters, I do not see there being many borderline cases but, as I said also in Committee, obviously I am not saying that there will not be any. We have drawn up the categories of development with great care to try to avoid there being left any grey areas over which a lot of disputes could arise. I agree that disputes may be possible, but I do not see any reason to alter the view that I have twice expressed that these are unlikely to be many and may not occur at all.
My Lords, the second point is the question of the local authority certifying that the land is suitable for relevant development and of that being the final say in the matter. I imagine the noble Baroness is suggesting that it should be possible for the decision to be questioned in the courts. As I said in the letter and in Committee, the problem is that this is

1153
a planning issue, and we do not think that it would appropriate for planning issues to be taken to the courts. Thirdly, there is the matter of the significance of the certificate. The certificate is not the end of the matter; it merely allows the Secretary of State, if he so wishes, to exercise a discretion not to hold a public inquiry. It is not absolute in the sense that once the certificate has been issued that is the end of the matter; it is merely something to enable the Secretary of State to exercise a discretion if he so wishes.
My Lords, the noble Baroness asked what happens if the Secretary of State does exercise his discretion not to hold a public inquiry. That is the end of the matter. There is no further redress, as I understand it. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State will be very unwilling (as have been all Secretaries of State) not to hold a public inquiry if any objections are raised to the certificate. On the whole, the certificate will be something produced in a fairly routine way.
The noble Baroness did not speak to the Amendment. I do not know whether she would like me to go on in some detail about the effect of the Amendment; but I can say briefly that it would probably have the opposite effect from what she intends and would not provide a solution to the problem which she sees.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, although I do not invite the noble Lord to give it, it would have been as well to have had the explanation; because one of the explanations already given disturbs me. The whole burden of his argument at the beginning was that there would not be many cases, that there would he only a few—that there may be none; but there may be some. Since when has it been unimportant because only a few cases of hardship may be involved? Even if there is only one involved, it is worthy of some thought. I do not push for any further reply, for I know we want to get on; but I hope that the defence that there would not be many is not the sort of defence to be introduced very often.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not regard this as a very satisfactory situation. I accept that the drafting of my Amendment may not be correct, but I put it down to draw attention to what
1154
seems to be an injustice, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has said. There seem to be two cases in which it is very unsatisfactory from the point of view of the individual. It is unsatisfactory in the borderline case—on the Government's admission the certificate could be issued on a borderline case—in which the individual might have no right of redress and the owner of the land, obviously, could feel himself to be aggrieved because he had no right to question the issue of the certificate.
Secondly, it could be unsatisfactory because, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said, if representations are made to the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State does not accept the representations and confirms the certificate, that is the end of the matter. In that case, the individual aggrieved has reached, as it were, the end of the road. His only consolation must be, as the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, suggested, that the Secretary of State is unlikely to make a mistake and would listen carefully to what everybody said. I do not think that that would be very satisfactory. I do not intend to press this Amendment, but I have drawn attention to something on which I hope the Government will reflect and see whether anything could be done about it even at this late stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.10 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 56, line 1, after ("above") insert ("for the purposes of any proceedings in the Courts").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a narrow point regarding the certificate. Indeed, Amendments Nos. 59 and 60 cover the same point and, knowing the skill of my noble friend Viscount Colville I suspect his wording is better than mine. During the Committee stage it was questioned that under sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph I in Schedule 4 the words,
"A certificate under sub-paragraph (2) above shall be conclusive evidence of the facts stated in it"
could imply not only that an individual could not take that to court against the Authority on the grounds that the land was not suitable for development but also

1155
that the Secretary of State could not consider whether the land was suitable for development because it was conclusive evidence under the certificate. I recall that both the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is a distinguished lawyer, and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who is a distinguished barrister, questioned the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, on this point. The noble Lord. Lord Melchett, said that—I am sure rightly—the best evidence he had was that the wording was suitable. I have again put down this Amendment because I wondered, as lawyers tend to disagree, whether by now the advisers of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, had had time to reconsider the matter. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it may be convenient if I now speak to my Amendment No. 60 on this point because, as my noble friend has said, it covers the same issue. I have taken a formula which is widely used in the Town and Country Planning Act and which cuts out a reopening of something at a later date for various purposes, validity of various actions taken by the Secretary of State and matters of that kind; so the form of words I have used is one with which everybody in this field is familiar.
We had a considerable debate about this matter in Committee. The point was a narrow one. In order to establish that there should be a public inquiry, there will be cases—I do not think it is necessary to go into what they will be—whether under the definition of what the land may be in Clause 15 as it is now drafted as a result of last night's Amendment, or under the Bill as drafted before (I do not think it matters which), where the Secretary of State, in deciding whether or not to hold a public inquiry, will wish to consider whether the land certified as development land by the local authority comes into that category. This is an administrative action and I do not suppose that the question of evidence is relevant to it; whether or not the certificate is conclusive evidence probably does not matter. What matters is that people who wish to put a point of this kind in their objections with a view to persuading the Secretary of State to hold the public inquiry on these grounds, must know
1156
whether or not they are able to challenge the certificate only for this limited and narrow purpose.
The way I read the paragraph as at present drafted is they would say against me, and for the purposes of writing my objection to the Secretary of State against this compulsory purchase order, and asking him to hold the public inquiry, that I have to accept the certificate. It is a conclusive evidence against me that is what the opinion of the local authority is, and therefore I am not entitled to take the point. Those who are sufficiently assiduous to read all the debates that have occurred in Parliament on this Bill (they will have some work to do that!) may find enwrapped in the small print in the Official Report some indications that this strictness is not truly applicable.
I am anxious we should also provide on the face of the Statute for those who do not have immediate access to all the documents which your Lordships and Members of another place are lucky enough to have. If a solicitor anywhere in the country, or in London, who has not studied this matter in the Parliamentary proceedings, wishes to draft an objection on behalf of his client—or any other person doing it on behalf of a client—against a compulsory purchase order, he ought to be able to see on the face of the Act whether or not he is entitled to take this point. People will want public inquiries; they always want them. People dislike being deprived of them on compulsory acquisitions of their land. Looking carefully at the reason for this paragraph being put in, which is to prevent the matter being reopened ages later and upsetting a compulsory purchase order which has already been approved, it would be all right if we prevented the certificate being challenged in legal proceedings; but that would leave it open for everybody on the face of the Bill to know they could take this point for the narrow purpose we have been discussing.
I do not think it matters very much which of the Amendments is taken, but I hope that the Government will recognise that this is not supposed to be in any way an assault upon them, but an attempt to deal with the problem in the way apparently they want it dealt with, and

1157
make it clear to everybody what exactly their rights are. I hope we shall have some sympathy and possibly acceptance of one of the Amendments from noble Lords opposite.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, the mover of the Amendment seemed to give the impression that his noble friend, who happens to be a barrister, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who happens to be a prominent lawyer, were, because of their professions, able to give answers to the points that he was concerned about regarding these forms of licence. It so happens that lawyers are not always right. They try to interpret the law; but many of us who have come from the other place have had cases passed to us where lawyers have said, "You had better see your Member of Parliament; he will deal with it, and take up the matter elsewhere". From the debate which has taken place, and particularly from what the noble Viscount, who is a barrister, has said on this issue, justice is not being paid to the planning officers of local authorities. The planning officers of local authorities have had to pass important examinations to aspire to that position. I sat on district authorities where planning committees were subject to the guidance of the planning officers.
I think it is carrying this a little too far when we bring the professions into it. We think that because the lawyers state this or that they are right on every issue so far as these matters are concerned. But we must not forget that in the professional field there are many forms of professions in which judgments are formed. One finds, as has been said, that seldom do two economists agree on one issue. This often happens so far as the legal profession is concerned. I am not prepared to accept from the noble Earl who moved this Amendment that the observations made by his noble friend, or the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in Committee, carry with them the conviction that the Government ought to give way and agree to the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I accept what my noble friend says about lawyers not always being right—indeed, some may go further than that—but on this occasion there is some common ground between noble Lords opposite and ourselves. On Amendment No. 57, the
1158
noble Earl said, in his usual kind and generous way, when my noble friend accepted a proposition put forward at Committee stage, that we did not do that often. I hesitate to prove him wrong by saying that I intend to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. We still do not think that this is really necessary, but we accept that the Amendment would make the position absolutely clear and we certainly do not object to it. However, I wonder whether the noble Viscount and I could come to an agreement over the printing error which appears in the Marshalled List— "legal proceeding" should be "legal proceedings". If we can accept that as a printing error which can be put right when the Bill is printed, I shall be happy to accept Amendment No. 60.
Lord FOOT: My Lords. may I make one or two observations about the two Amendments which we have been discussing, and say to the noble Lord, Lord Slater, that I fully accept that lawyers very often make mistakes—on average, probably in about 50 per cent. of our cases. But I do not think that he really followed what the noble Viscount was saying, because the effect of either of these Amendments would be to remove the likelihood of solicitors or barristers in future making mistakes when advising their clients. That was the substance of the noble Viscount's argument, and I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Slater, correctly understood the point that he was making.
As regards the wording of the two Amendments, I was surprised to hear the noble Viscount say that the words he has used are common form in planning legislation. I myself am much more familiar with the words 'for the purpose of any proceeding in the courts", and I should have thought that was the preferable form of wording. But even if Amendment No. 60 is accepted, I suggest that the word "whatsoever" is otiose. It adds nothing and is therefore objectionable. If I had to make a choice, I would prefer the Government to accept Amendment No. 59, but, if they are to accept Amendment No. 60, then I hope we shall strike out the word "whatsoever".
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, by leave of the House, perhaps it would help if I indicated that the reason for our

1159
preference for Amendment No. 60 is that it is in line with the form of words already used in paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 7 to this Bill, and the same wording is found in the Acquisition of Land Act 1946. That is why we prefer Amendment No. 60.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, with the leave of the House, might I add the comment that if that is right, and if these words appear in some earlier enactments, then, if there is substance in my point that "whatsoever" is otiose and we accept this wording because it is found in earlier legislation, all we are doing is perpetuating a mistake.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for indicating his acceptance of one of these Amendments, and I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for his support of my Amendment. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the Government have indicated that they will accept the Amendment of my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.23 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 60:
Page 56, line 1, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 2 and insert ("not be questioned in any legal proceeding whatsoever").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not need to delay the noble Lord, except to thank him very much. I have merely followed the drafting of the legislation as it is recorded in the place to which he referred us—paragraph 7(4) of Schedule 7—so whatever has to come out of the wording of my Amendment must come out there as well. I followed what I believed to be a well tried and tested form of words. I do not know whether in moving this Amendment I am allowed to move also a manuscript substitution of the word" proceedings" for "proceeding". I do not know whether the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees might permit that, but we could then put the whole matter right in one go. I beg to move.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: Amendment proposed: page 56, line 1, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 2
1160
and insert ("not to be questioned in any legal proceedings whatsoever").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 61 formally. I spoke to this with Amendment No. 57.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, leave out lines 2 to 9.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 56, line 26, after ("unless") insert ("within the five years preceding the making of the order").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 62 and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, which are consequential. I put down these Amendments because I thought it would be helpful to know the Government's intentions regarding this part of the Schedule, whereby there will not be a public inquiry into a compulsory purchase order if there has already been a public local inquiry in to the development plan. So far as I can see, the Bill does not indicate whether this means a recent public inquiry and a recent development plan. My Amendment states that this should apply provided the development plan inquiry has been held within the last five years.
I have not had time to make extensive inquiries as to how many development plans are now between 10 and 15 years old, but my noble friend Lord Colville just told me that most of them are of that age, and certainly such inquiries as I have made have led me to think that that is so. Therefore, the public inquiry will have taken place a very long time ago and a great deal may have happened in the meantime. So I wonder whether the Government would consider this to be a reasonable Amendment, which in no way goes against the principle of what they wish to do in the Schedule, but will at least mean that when there is not to be a further public inquiry the evidence will be as recent as within the last five years. I beg to move.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, I do not think the noble Baroness has really done justice to the Amendments she has been discussing. I understand we are here dealing with three Amendments. It is right

1161
to say that Amendment No. 62 does a great deal more than just insert the words:
"within the five years preceding the making of the order",
because, if I have correctly understood the subsequent Amendment, No. 63, it strikes out from the subsection the words
"unless the confirming authority is satisfied".
That has very considerable implications, and perhaps it might be helpful if I tried to remind the House of what we are dealing with.
Paragraph 3 introduces the new procedure under paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act, and in paragraph 3(3) we have set out those cases in which the Secretary of State need not hold a public inquiry, in spite of the fact that there is an objection which has not been withdrawn. That is what paragraph 3(3) is all about. As the Bill is drawn at the moment, it is for the Secretary of State to decide whether any particular case falls within head (a), (b) or (c). The effect of the second Amendment of the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 63, would be to strike out the reference at the very beginning to the confirming authority—that is the Secretary of State—so that it would then read:
"This sub-paragraph applies unless within five years preceding the making of the order—
(a) planning permission …"—
et cetera. Therefore, that eliminates the Secretary of State as the person who decides whether the particular case in issue falls within sub-paragraph (3)(a), (b) or (c). If the Secretary of State is eliminated as the arbiter of that matter, who is going to decide? The only people who could decide it, so far as I can see, would be the courts.
Two very serious consequences would, I suggest, follow from that. The first is that the door would be opened to a flood of litigation. For example, I take head (b) on the question as to whether
"the grant of planning permission for relevant development in respect of the land comprised in the order would he in accordance with the provisions of that plan"—
the local plan. If the Secretary of State is cut out as the arbiter of that matter and it is left to the courts, then there is nothing to stop anybody from going to the courts, and saying: 'I dispute that
1162
this is a case in which planning permission would be in accordance with the provisions of the local plan." I think everybody has agreed hitherto that it is desirable to avoid a flood of litigation upon this matter, and I think it is a matter of general agreement in the House now that on these matters, which are essentially planning matters, the courts are singularly unqualified to make decisions of this kind. Therefore, I should have thought that if we are considering all these three Amendments together we must consider them in that light, and that there are manifest objections to what the noble Baroness is proposing.
May I add that I am afraid that the way in which these Amendments are framed is verbally totally defective. I will not weary the House by trying to read out in extenso how this subparagraph would read with the noble Baroness's Amendments, but if anybody cares to do that exercise in his own mind he will find that it simply is not grammatical and does not make any sense at all. To try to illustrate that by an extraction, it would read:
"This sub-paragraph applies unless within five years preceding the making of the order"—
and now I go on to head (b)—
"where a local plan for the district in which the land is situated has been adopted or approved under Part IT of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971"—
we have to leave out the word "that" to make it grammatical—
"the grant of planning permission for relevant development in respect of the land comprised in the order would be in accordance with the provisions of that plan".
The words, "within five years preceding the making of the order", may possibly make sense in relation to head (a) where one is speaking about a planning permission and saying planning permission must have been given within five years. But it makes no sense at all when one is speaking about a notional grant of planning permission, as one is in head (b) and indeed in head (c). Therefore, apart from the fundamental objections, as I see it, to this proposal, it seems to me that the whole of these Amendments would have to be rewritten, even if the arguments advanced and the idea the noble Baroness has in mind are a valid and good point.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I was not sure whether the noble Lord, while criticising the words and the meaning that could flow from this proposal—which may well be very sound because he has obviously given a lot of study to it and I imagine his argument is well based—found the principle behind these Amendments acceptable. Whatever views he may have on Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, the point behind No. 62 is well based, it is good sense, and if it is good sense words can always be found to make it good law. It is obvious to anybody who works in this field that great changes take place both in the desires and wishes of local authorities and in planning generally over a five-year period. Things are happening, and they are happening quickly. I believe that to make it ultra vires without inserting some period—and five years seems to be a reasonable period—would not be reflecting the problems that face people who have to work in this field at the present time. So I would hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in giving consideration to the arguments on these Amendments, and while she will no doubt take into account the accuracy of the wording, for it is right that that should be done, would be prepared to accept the principle behind Amendment No. 62. It is sound and I believe it would make the Bill much better in its application in future years.
3.36 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, perhaps I may speak first to Amendment No. 62 and then to Nos. 63 and 64. As has already been pointed out, so I will not dwell on it, the drafting of No. 62 is defective, so in any case it could not be accepted as it stands. Nevertheless, what is more important, and what I think the noble Baroness had most in mind, is the intention behind the Amendment. I would immediately agree that the basic intention is an entirely reasonable one; that is, that the Secretary of State should not dispense with an inquiry on the basis of planning information that is so far out of date that it no longer presents a fair picture of the planning background in an area. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, also made that point.
However, unfortunately it is not quite so simple or straightforward as that because trouble starts when there is an
1164
attempt to tie this down to any fixed period; for instance, the period of five years mentioned in the Amendment. Although the noble Lord said he thought this was quite enough and it was fair enough, I am afraid that in practice it would not work out quite so simply as he appeared to think. So far as planning permissions are concerned, the Amendment is in itself unnecessary. That is because the Secretary of State can dispense with a public inquiry only where a planning permission is in force, and the validity of a planning permission is generally limited to five years. So in normal circumstances there could not be a planning permission in force which was granted more than five years before the making of the CPO. This I think we all know and are agreed upon.
In the other two cases, which is where local plans or development plans are involved, the argument is rather more generalised. Any specific time limit attached to the period of usefulness of these plans for the purpose of dispensing with inquiries must run the risk, as I think noble Lords will have to agree, of cutting out good plans as well as bad ones. This risk exists and it is impossible to get round it in this way. The trouble is that the pace of considerably from one area to another. Obviously, a plan for an area where little development is planning, as I think we are all agreed, varies taking place will have a much longer validity than one in an area scheduled for heavy development and where planning approaches may be changing the whole time. Therefore, a generalised time limit cannot encompass these variations, and yet it would be wrong not to allow the Secretary of State to dispense with the public inquiry on the basis of a plan which, though old, was still in those circumstances perfectly valid.
It seems to us that the answer to the genuine point underlying the Amendments is that, in each case, in deciding whether or not to dispense with a public inquiry, the Secretary of State will have to consider the adequacy of the planning background. The age of the plans will be a material factor in his consideration, and where a plan was simply out of date the Secretary of State would certainly not want to rely on it and would therefore not exercise his discretion to dispense with an inquiry. It is for

1165
these, I submit, very strong, practical reasons, that I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her Amendment—not because there is any policy disagreement, but because we do not think it would be practical, and also it could be inhibiting and produce results which are not wanted by anybody.
If we may turn to the next two Amendments, Amendments Nos. 63 and 64, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has answered most, if not all, of the points raised. However, the Amendment has raised an issue which has recurred several times during the debates on this Bill; namely, where the line should be drawn between those decisions which ought to be left to the Secretary of State and those which should rest with the courts. The point which has been generally accepted and was expounded very well by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is that matters which involve an element of planning judgment should be left to the Secretary of State since, as the noble Lord himself said, the courts are not equipped to make such judgments. This is true of the present case where judgment as to whether the grant of planning permission would be in accordance with a local plan will not usually be an absolutely clear-cut issue. Therefore it would be inappropriate to give the courts any role, as the Amendment seeks to do. However, it must be remembered that in reaching his decision the Secretary of State is acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and must make a reasoned decision on the merits of the case.
For all the reasons which I have expounded, and also for the reasons which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, I hope that after this very useful debate on the principle, the noble Baroness will withdraw her Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: May I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for that answer. I appreciate that the Amendments are not correctly drafted. On many occasions during the course of this Bill one has had to prepare Amendments late at night and in a hurry and, not being a lawyer, I am afraid that they are not always as accurate as they should be. I must accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, although I am glad
1166
to think that he feels I have raised a point of importance.
This debate has shown that what could be construed as a very real misunderstanding about the interpretation of this part of the Schedule has been cleared up, and I should like to thank the noble Baroness for her clear explanation. It will be useful to local authorities and to individuals who read the Schedule to have had this very full and detailed explanation of what are the Government's intentions with regard to the new procedure. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.42 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, Amendment No. 65 could be described as consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 29, leave out from first ("the") to ("is") in line 30 and insert ("purpose specified as that for which the land is required").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Viscount would remove the requirement which was inserted at Committee stage, that where a public inquiry is dispensed with on the basis of the planning permission, the planning permission should be consistent with the reasons given by the authority before the acquisition, and would substitute the requirement that the planning permission should be consistent with the purpose specified as that for which the land is required. Most of us remember that after a long debate in Committee the original Amendment was carried against the Government in a Division. However, in the light of the Government Amendments which were agreed to this afternoon—Amendments Nos. 57 and 61—which remove the requirement for an authority to state the reasons for the acquisition and go back to the existing procedure of stating the purpose, obviously the original Amendment could no longer stand.
By this Amendment the noble Viscount is bringing the change into line with the Government Amendments. However, the Government are still considering the implications of the basic change brought about by the original Amendment that

1167
was carried in Committee. Until this consideration is completed the Government cannot take a view on the present Amendment, except to say that, given what the House has decided up to this moment, it follows from the Government Amendments that this change is necessary. I do not propose to resist the Amendment but I should point out that my failure to divide the House must clearly be without prejudice to the view that the Government will take on the basic issue.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.45 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 56, line 35, after ("approved") insert ("after a local inquiry or hearing").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we come now to the circumstances in which a public inquiry can be dispensed with, and again I should like to draw the attention of the House to the case where there is a local plan. Last time I suggested that only those local plans which had been approved by the Secretary of State should qualify as local plans on the basis of which the Secretary of State could dispense with the subsequent public inquiry upon an acquisition under this Bill. The noble Baroness and I did not see entirely eye to eye on how that would work out in practice. However, she has written me a very helpful and useful letter and we are now in agreement about how it would work. I have not gone back to that point but have raised a slightly different one which I hope will be more acceptable to the Government.
The point is that if the Secretary of State dispenses with a public inquiry upon a subsequent compulsory purchase order after there has been a local plan and when the compulsory purchase order for the land which is to be acquired under this Bill is in accordance with the local plan, it seems to me to be right that one should have had a public inquiry in the case of the local plan. I dare say that almost always this will have been so. Nevertheless, I suspect that there will be cases, perhaps relating to very small areas which at the time were uncontroversial and since have raised more controversial issues, when there was not originally a public inquiry into the local plan. In
1168
those cases, the Secretary of State could still dispense with a public inquiry in the case of a compulsory purchase order and there would be no public inquiry. I do not think that is right.
Although I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will tell me that administratively the Secretary of State would probably hold the public inquiry on the compulsory purchase order if there had not been an inquiry on the local plan itself, if that is going to be so administratively why do we not provide for it in the Bill? It seems to me to be the sensible thing to do. Almost always it willbe a situation that will have been fulfilled in fact, so it will not cause any great difficulty. However, I should like to think that we are trying to make plain to people who will be affected by this Bill how the machinery will work and the occasions upon which they can generally, and with some degree of anticipation of success, ask for a public inquiry to be held.
I hope this will not be thought to go nearly so far as my last attempt in this field and that it might prove acceptable to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down may I ask him to explain the significance of the words he has used? What is the difference between a public inquiry and a hearing?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not have the faintest idea. I have taken the words straight out of the local plans provision of the Town and Country Planning Act. One is formal and the other is less formal.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I support my noble friend on this issue and make two additional points? I hope the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will agree that if the planning framework of the place and the acquisition of land in a particular area are to be the subject of one inquiry, there is a great deal to be said for so arranging matters and so arranging the law—this Bill in particular—that the inquiry should take place in a planning and not in a land acquisition context. That is a point upon which my views are reinforced by the Town and Country Planning Association.
At the earlier stage of the Bill, I was not entirely satisfied with the noble

1169
Lord's description of the attitude of the Town and Country Planning Association, nor that of the Royal Town Planning Institute. At that moment we on this side were chiefly in touch with those bodies which we knew were dissatisfied with the Bill. It was not until after we had grappled with all that, that speaking for myself, I was able to make contact with other bodies concerned, which we had been led to understand were satisfied. On this issue the Town and Country Planning Association are strongly in support of what my noble friend is seeking to introduce by this Amendment, because they, too, agree that if the land acquisition schemes are to be led by the planning process then, wherever possible, the inquiry should be into the planning process and not into the acquisition process, and this will be secured if this Amendment is imported into the Bill. I hope that the Government, who have expressed themselves as wanting to have the land acquisition planning-led, will see that this Amendment helps them to achieve that purpose. I beg to support the Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I accept that this Amendment does not go as far as the Amendment to which the noble Viscount referred and which he moved at the Committee stage. However, I have to tell him that this Amendment is not acceptable to the Government. The intention of the Government is that the ability to dispense with an inquiry should, apart from the reserve procedure in paragraph 4 of the Schedule, be available only where there has already been a public inquiry into the planning issues. If there are no objections to a local plan, there will always have been a public inquiry into that plan. Thus there seems to be no difference of intention between the Government and noble Lords opposite. In the view of the Government, this situation is already achieved by the Bill and the Amendment is therefore not necessary.
I should like to emphasise that Section 13(1) of the 1971 Act requires that the local planning authority shall hold a local inquiry which by virtue of Regulation 31 of the Town and Country Planning (Structure and Local Plans) Regulations 1974 has to be a public inquiry, in the case of any objection made in accordance with the regulations made by the Secretary of State. Under these regulations, by virtue
1170
of Regulation 5 and Form 7, any objection is valid provided that it is made within the specified period, which is to be not less than the six-week period; and states the matter to which the objection relates and the grounds of the objection.
To put all that simply, if there is any valid objection to a local plan there will always have to be a public inquiry into the plan. Therefore, it is our view that the Amendment is not necessary. If there are no objections to local plans—if someone has had the right to object to a local plan and thereby force an inquiry and has not done so—we take the view that the Secretary of State should have the power to dispense with an inquiry. My understanding is that the Council on Tribunals take the same view as we do about this matter. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment.
3.54 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, somehow I thinkit was the wrong script at the beginning of that speech, because of course there will not be a public inquiry or hearing unless there are objections, and something which the noble Lord said at the beginning tended to blur that point, although he put it right at the end. The noble Lord must forgive me for differing about this. I appreciate, as I think I said, that it will probably be fairly rare for a local plan to be approved without a public inquiry. But it may happen, and I am also concerned about the time factor. I personally hope that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be disposed of as quickly as possible upon the change of Administration. But let us suppose that it is not, and that we are going to live with the wretched thing for a long time. We do not yet know how the procedure for the local plans, and the updated local plans, will proceed. It was lovely at the beginning of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947. Everybody thought that there really were to be quinquennial reviews of the development plans, and look at what has happened. I suppose that most of them have had one review in the course of about 25 years, but some of them have not had even that.
Oxfordshire is still working on a development plan, the preparatory work for which was done in 1948. Nobody has

1171
changed it since. There have been various informal documents, but there has been no proper development plan since the one which was approved in 1954. We do not in the least know what is to happen under local plans. We do not know whether the timetable for revisions will be kept up. We could therefore have a situation where a local plan—and, after all, a local plan can be for quite a small area; it is not the same as the plan for the whole of the county or the whole of the district; we can have a series of local plans for quite small areas—has been put forward and dealt with and been entirely unexceptionable at the time, but has become hopelessly out of date. If in those circumstances, many years later, the local authority having perhaps changed other local plans, or the district having changed, the Secretary of State says, "We still do not need a public inquiry, because it is in accordance with this ancient, out of date local plan", then that is wrong. At any rate, there will be one safeguard in those circumstances if we provide that there had to be a public inquiry in the first place.
I do not know what the House thinks about this, but it seems to me that if the noble Lord is saying that he thinks there ought to have been—and there usually will have been—a public inquiry or hearing in the first instance, then I cannot see what harm there would be in putting it into the Bill which would make clear what everybody desires to happen. I do not feel inclined to withdraw this Amendment.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, may I say that this is one of the very rare cases where the logic of the noble Viscount does not carry. As I understand the argument he is using it is this. He is saying: "What worries me is that there may have been a local plan adopted back in the 1950s and that is the local plan to which you will have to look when you are considering a case under sub-paragraph (3)(b)."He goes on to say that it may well be that circumstances have completely changed since then and that therefore it would be wrong not to allow a public inquiry on the compulsory purchase order which is now in mind. But he is really reverting to the point made by the noble Baroness about having a five-year limit—or some limit in time. It is no
1172
protection to insert the words that the noble Lord is suggesting, that there must have been a public inquiry back in 1948, because the plan in 1976, if it was adopted in 1948 after a public inquiry, may be just as deficient when one is considering whether there ought to be a public inquiry under a case coming under sub-paragraph (3)(b); therefore it really is not a safeguard.
Having said that, although I think that is a bad argument, I am nevertheless a supporter of what the noble Viscount is trying to do because I cannot see why the Government should be unwilling to accept this. As I understand it, the case put forward by the Government is this: they say that under some previous legislation wherever there is a valid objection there must have been a public inquiry, and it is only in such cases where a local plan is drawn up and nobody makes any objection that one could do without a public inquiry. But I should have thought it was all too easy for a local plan to go through without objection, simply because the people who may many years later find themselves very much affected by it do not apprehend the way in which they are threatened.
People do not go into local council offices to inspect local plans in detail to see how they might conceivably at some future time affect their property. People get "up in arms" and object when they suddenly find their own property pinpointed by some compulsory purchase order, or something of that kind. Therefore, I cannot really see why the Government should resist this Amendment. It does not do them any harm to let it go in, and the number of cases in which it will be of any consequence, on the Government's own admission, are probably minimal, trifling and trivial. It does not seem to me that the insertion of these words can do any harm, and, indeed, can do anything but good.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I first echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, about the argument advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on whether or not something is out of date? I do not think that was a valid point on this Amendment. It referred back to a short discussion we had a little time ago, and as the noble Lord, Lord

1173
Foot, said, a plan can get equally out of date whether or not there was a public inquiry at the time it was made. The basic disadvantage of this Amendment is that it will interfere with the existing planning system, and that is something we have all along very strongly resisted, and not wanted the Bill to do.
My Lords, one effect of the Amendment, in our view, would be to deter people from objecting to local plans on planning grounds so that if there had to be an inquiry at the acquisition stage they could then raise planning argument. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is making noises about that.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I was saying that that is far-fetched.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, there is no doubt that it would be a sensible thing, if people were going to object to acquisition, not to object at the planning stage but to cause a lot of trouble at the acquisition stage. The other point, which is another limb of that argument, is that it seems to me that if the planning issues have been settled without any objections raised—and that is what we are talking about—then, once someone comes along and wants to purchase some of the land along the lines of those planning decisions
already made without any objection, any reopening of the argument will in practice be based on objections to public acquisition and not on planning grounds. The planning issues will have been settled when the plan was originally drawn up.
My Lords, so far as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is concerned, this is something which came up in Committee. It may be true that at present not enough attention is paid by the general public to planning issues. I hope that this Bill, by strengthening planning, will increase the amount of public participation in planning issues. That is all to the good. It is not something that we should try to stop by passing an Amendment which I think will decrease the amount of participation at the planning stage so that people are left free to object at some later stage about issues which should already have been decided.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I have already made two speeches; I had better not make another.
4.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 66) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 119; Not-Contents, 64.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dundee, E.

Killearn, L.

Airedale, L.

Eccles, V.

Kinloss, Ly.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Effingham, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Alport, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Kinnoull, E.

Amherst, E.

Elton, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Arran, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Balerno, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Long, V.

Balfour, E.

Exeter, M.

Loudoun, C.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fairhaven, L.

Lyell, L.

Banks, L.

Falkland, V.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Barnby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L

Barrington, V.

Foot, L.

Mansfield, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Margadale, L.

Belstead, L.

Gage, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Berkeley, B.

Glendevon, L.

Merrivale, L.

Birdwood, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Middleton, L.

Boothby, L.

Goschen, V.

Monck, V.

Bourne, L.

Grantchester, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Byers, L.

Grenfell, L.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Northchurch, B.

Carrington, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Chesham, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Ogmore, L.

Colville of Culross, V. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Cowley, E.

Hampton, L.

Platt, L.

Craigton, L.

Hankey, L.

Porritt, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Daventry, V.

Hawke, L.

Rathcavan, L.

de Freyne, L.

Henley, L.

Roberthall, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Hylton-Foster, B.

Rochdale, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sackville, L.

Dudley, B.

Kemsley, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

St. Davids, V.

Somers, L.

Vickers, B.

St. Helens, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Vivian, L.

Sandford, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Wade, L.

Sandys, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Savile, L.

Strathspey, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Selkirk, E.

Tenby, V.

Wigoder, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Thomas, L.

Wise, L.

Sherfield, L.

Tranmire, L.

Yarborough, E.

Simon, V.

Vernon, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Pargiter, L.

Balogh, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Peddie, L.

Birk, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Phillips, B.

Brockway, L.

Hale, L.

Popplewell, L.

Bruce of Donnington, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hoy, L.

Rhodes, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hughes, L.

Rusholme, L.

Castle, L.

Janner, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Clwyd, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Snow, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Crook, L.

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Summerskill, B.

Darwen, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

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

Milford, L.

Winlerbottom, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Fulton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.12 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 56, leave out lines 40 to 44.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment concerns development plans. I do not feel so strongly about this one, but I should like to explore it a little more than we did in Committee in order to get the Government's views. Development plans are not likely to be nearly so often relevant for the purposes of doing away with the subsequent public inquiry as are local plans. For the purposes of this definition, a local plan is a development plan, according to the definition in the Town and Country Planning Acts, so we really have local plans in twice. I shall concentrate more upon the sort of plans which count as development plans under the definition but which are not local plans. I think I am right in saying that they are, first of all, the old-style local plans before structure plans were invented; and, secondly, structure plans now that they have been invented. It would be helpful for those who wish to follow the debates and understand what is the Government's policy if the
1176
noble Baroness would indicate what the Department and the Secretary of State will have in mind when deciding that the second public inquiry may be dispensed with if the development the local authority is seeking is in accordance with the provisions of the development plan.
First of all, would she concede that where we are dealing with the old style development plan it is almost always going to be completely out of date? She may tell me that there are some reviews of county development plans or town maps under the old procedure which have been approved comparatively recently by the Secretary of State. I think I saw one in Hertfordshire the other day which was approved in 1971, but the difficulty about it was that it was submitted for approval in 1964; it had taken all that time. Of course, it was based upon material which was prepared even before it was submitted for approval. So even that sort of development plan is out of date. I should like, therefore, the noble Baroness to give an indication as to whether or not it would be usual for the Secretary of State to rely on the provisions of the old style development plans and to say that as the acquisition is in accordance with that he

1177
will not have a second public inquiry. I should have thought that that would be an unusual step to take; I think he would usually say, "We had better have another look at it".
Then we come to the new style structure plans. It is no doubt my loss, but I am not familiar with the West Midlands one which was referred to in Committee. The ordinary structure plans are not really ordnance survey-based at all (or only very small parts of them are), and it will not be possible accurately to pinpoint what is the proposed use intended for a particular piece of land in accordance with that plan. There may be circumstances, perhaps in regard to town centres, where there is something in the structure plan which is sufficiently precise, but even then I should have expected the structure plans to be a little vague about the actual definition, in terms of geography, about the town centre. Would the noble Baroness confirm that it is going to be very unusual—perhaps she could give us examples as to where it would happen—for the structure plans to be a reliable basis for dispensing with the second public inquiry? Perhaps also she would be so kind as to tell us what it is about this West Midlands case which is different from all the others and which allows it to be used as a basis for dispensing with the public inquiry if there is to be a compulsory acquisition to accord with it. I am seeking further information to enable people to prepare their objections on sensible grounds which accord with the thinking of the Government, and to understand how the Government will decide whether or not to hold a public inquiry. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Viscount pointed out, the effect of his Amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to dispense with a public inquiry on the basis of any development plan other than an approved or adopted local plan. Amendment No. 69 is consequential. This provision was discussed at Committee stage, and the Amendment to remove this power was designed to seek elucidation on how it would be used and was withdrawn on that basis. I feel that we are really going over somewhat the same ground again. I explained then the inten-
1178
tions behind the provision, and frankly there is really nothing further to add.
Where the existing old style development plan is ordnance survey-based and gives detailed proposals for the use of land, there is an expectation, until such time as it may be superseded by a local plan, that the land will be developed according to the allocations in the plan. If relevant development would clearly be consistent with the allocations for the particular land—and these allocations will have been decided after an inquiry—it is inappropriate that the CPO inquiry should be used as an occasion for debate on the planning policies for the area. So it would be quite wrong to remove the provision from the Bill.
As the noble Viscount pointed out, and and as I have argued before, it can be argued that a structure plan is too vague for the purpose of this provision, and that the examination in public does not go into the kind of detail that would enable the owner of the land to know how this land would be affected. We accept that a structure plan would generally be too vague to form the basis for acquisition, and this is in fact stated in the note on the planning framework.
But there would be technical difficulty in attempting to depart from the planning Act definition of what is the development plan before a local plan is in existence. The Secretary of State—I think that probably this is the main point—would certainly take into account the nature of the structure plan in deciding whether to exercise his discretion, and would hold an inquiry if this was necessary. It is often true that old style development plans are out of date and this would be taken into account by the Secretary of State in deciding whether to hold an inquiry at all, but there are some areas—and this is the reference to the West Midlands, which I think I made on Committee stage—where there have been recent amendments to old style development plans which could certainly form an adequate planning basis for acquisition.
To sum it up, the reason for it is that we need this to cover the period until there are new plans everywhere. To put anything else into the Bill would create more difficulties than it would ease. I hope I have assured the noble Viscount

1179
on the point that the Secretary of State would take this into account, and also the point that there have been, and are, continuous recent amendments to old style development plans and that these would form an adequate planning basis during what would be a kind of interim period.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. I had not appreciated that the reference to the West Midlands was not a reference to structure plans but to the old-style development plan. That makes it clearer because I could not think of what was going on in the structure plan for the West Midlands that made it so different from anywhere else. The noble Baroness said that where the proposals of the compulsory purchase order complied with the old-style development plan, then that might be good enough, but she must appreciate that that would not do on its own, first, if the old-style development plan is ancient and out-of-date and, secondly, and perhaps even more important, if that matter, at the time when the development plan was presented to the Secretary of State and was open to objection, was not subject of a public inquiry on this point.
Take something which is very old and out-of-date and where there is still, for some reason, a piece of land allocated for industrial purposes, but which has never been taken up for those purposes. I can think of a piece of land in London with which I have been recently dealing. the allocation on the old-style development plan is not only old and out-of-date but is now totally irrelevant. It was put there to reflect an existing use which happened to exist at the time. Everything is changed, not body wants to use it for those purposes any more but for some totally different purpose, and I do not think that there was ever a public inquiry into it. Would the noble Baroness tell the House that that would be an occasion when the Secretary of State would almost certainly be wrong in dispensing with a public inquiry, supposing that the local authority tried to come along now and buy it for the original purpose which most other people thought was totally inapposite. That is what I want to get at. I do not know whether she will be allowed by leave to deal with that.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, have I the leave of the House to speak again? I thought I covered this. I can only repeat what I said, which seemed to me to meet adequately the point the noble Viscount makes. In the circumstances which he outlines in the development plan, the Secretary of State would certainly take into account the nature of the plan when he is deciding whether to exercise his discretion, and he would hold an inquiry if this was necessary. Whatever were the reasons, and these would be among them, he would still have the discretion to hold an inquiry. I can give the reassurance to the noble Viscount that the points he enumerated, which I will not take up the time of the House by going into again, would be factors which the Secretary of State would have to take into account, and would take into account, when he decides whether an inquiry ought to be held.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I think that that is a much better and clearer assurance, and a very helpful one, and on those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.26 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 67C:
Page 57, line 18, leave out ("or inexpedient") and insert ("to ensure development of the land.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, no one has been very fond of "unnecessary or inexpedient" and certainly this is not an occasion to go back into the New Towns Act, but the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that if somebody could think of something better which was not open to the sort of criticisms that were presented to the suggestions we made in Committee, he would consider it. I do not know whether I have been any more successful this time than we were before, but it is really to follow up the precise delineation of the point which he himself put forward that I venture to suggest this Amendment might be some good, and would actually describe the circumstances where the inquiry could be dispensed with on this ground. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Viscount says, I did say at Committee stage that we would consider alter-

1181
native wordings, if the alternative wordings reflected the spirit of the Government's intentions in this matter. Our intentions are that it should be possible to disregard an objection where an owner was effectively arguing either against the principle of public acquisition or that public acquisition was unnecessary in that case. I am sure that the noble Viscount has taken that point. Indeed, he has made a valiant attempt to meet it. I am advised that this is the first real attempt that has been made to get to grips with the problem.
Unfortunately, however, it does not go far enough, because it would still leave it open to the owner to argue that although the acquisition is unnecessary to ensure that development takes place, nevertheless if the land were not acquired, he or she would be able to ensure that the land was developed more quickly or in a better manner than if it were publicly acquired. On that narrow ground there may still be some room for doubt. That, of course, would clearly not be within the spirit of the Government's intentions. I fully accept that the noble Viscount has made a genuine attempt to meet the point. On the other hand, I hope he will accept that many expert advisers to Her Majesty's Government have also spent many hours seeing whether any alternative form of words could be devised, and they have not had any success. None of us seems to have been able to improve on the words in the New Towns Act 1965, and I am afraid we would rather rest with those words.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I expect that with a little ingenuity I may be able to put the necessary caveat which the noble Lord has hinted is still required. Every time he describes this it is helpful because it goes a little further in trying to pin down the area of prohibition upon which one must not go, and if one does one loses one's public inquiry. I shall study what he says, and we have time for one more try at this. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 67A:
Page 57, leave out from line 34 to end of line 2 on page 58.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 67B and 68A. We debated this matter in Committee and I have explained that, unfortunately, I inserted my Amendment in the wrong part of Schedule 4. These three Amendments are tabled to put that wrong insertion right.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I cannot let this occasion go by without referring to some rather extraordinary points surrounding this group of Amendments, which has made rather tortuous progress up to now. On 24th October, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, moved the original Amendment and, at the end of the discussion—in which I had raised several points and made it clear that the Government did not accept the Opposition's arguments on the matter—I did not receive a satisfactory answer. Other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked for a further explanation but still no reply was given. There seemed to be an air of confusion and disarray on the Benches opposite over this whole issue. However, the Question was then put and there was a Division.
On Monday. 27th October, the noble Baroness moved a consequential Amendment and explained that she had inserted her Amendment in the wrong place and would move an Amendment to put that right. When it appeared on the Marshalled List, it was again down in the same place. It was taken out of that place and we now see the same Amendment down in a different place. I find the whole process rather extraordinary, particularly as it was a fundamental Amendment from the point of view of the Opposition. It was an attack on the Government's attitude to the owner-occupier which has been the basis of so much propaganda and bogey-raising both inside and outside Parliament. It is extraordinary that noble Lords opposite should have conducted the issue in this way. If it had not been the noble Baroness who was doing it—and she is certainly not ham-handed—I would have said that the matter had been handled in

1183
a ham-handed way. The only conclusion I can draw is that some Freudian influence is at work, and that the noble Baroness would rather not change anything but leave matters as they are. If so, it would be wrong if I did not give her an opportunity to withdraw the whole lot.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I can see that this is not my afternoon from the drafting point of view, but perhaps I can put my side of the case. I tabled the Amendment originally and, as I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will accept, we have been working to a very tight timetable on this Bill. We went into Committee one week after this Schedule had been debated and altered by Amendment in another place. I had misread the Schedule and therefore inserted the Amendment in the wrong place. I am prepared to accept that I made a mistake; I am never one to try to pretend to be perfect, in this or in any other matter. I recognised my mistake and said so the following day; I said I had inserted my Amendment in the wrong place, I apologised to the Committee and said I would come back to it on Report. I came back on Report and, while I am not criticising anybody else, my Amendment was put down incorrectly yesterday. As soon as I saw that it was incorrect, I amended it and I have done my best to bring it forward today. This illustrates the difficulties under which we are working. Those of us who do not have a large number of advisors behind us, but who have to work as best we can on our own may not always get it right.
I am prepared to speak to my Amendment again. Some difficulties arose, not surprisingly, on the last occasion because it was inserted in the wrong place, and therefore it clearly read somewhat strangely. However, the point at issue is simple. Amendments Nos. 67A and 67B are paving Amendments for No. 68A and the point of No. 68A is to give the owner-occupier the right to object at a public inquiry—the right he has today. It does not improve or alter his position in any way. It simply maintains the status quo, and that is why we inserted it. The arguments were well gone over. The whole proceedings under Schedule 4 mean that in certain circumstances the
1184
owner-occupier does not have a right to object at a public inquiry where there has already been an approved development plan or a local plan. We debated this at great length. My Amendment would maintain that right, and I hope that I have at least now inserted it in the right place and that the difficulties that were apparent on the last occasion will not arise today.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Young and I rise to put a Back-Bench point of view. What has really disturbed me about this Bill is the fact that for the first time we have a measure by which Parliament is delegating considerable powers to local authorities, and I should have thought that it was the duty of Parliament to make absolutely clear the precise powers under which they can act. Under Clause 15, there are powers of acquisition and these are to some extent elaborated in Schedule 4. I cannot see, where an authority has considerable powers under the Bill, why the Government should object to an Amendment which, as my noble friend Lady Young rightly said, is designed to allay fears in the country. These fears have not been aroused by the Opposition. Fears exist on the part of the single householder and we have not been responsible for causing them.
Several Noble Lords: Oh?
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I absolutely refute such a charge and, if it is levelled against us, I should like to know the occasion on which we have been responsible. People throughout the country are concerned about the rights of the individual householder and, as I say, powers are being given in this Bill in no uncertain fashion to local authorities, and we are simply asking for protection to be given to the rights of the individual in respect of property.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, having heard the difficulties under which we are labouring. may I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, to withdraw the words "ham-handed" which perhaps fell inadvertently from her lips?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will make a brief comment. I do not propose to resist this Amendment, because we voted on an

1185
Amendment in exactly the same terms the other day, when the Opposition got it through by a very small majority. I therefore do not propose to put the House to the time and trouble of doing it again. I made it clear that in using the term "ham-handed" I was not referring to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I said specifically that it struck me that the whole procedure had been handled rather ham-handedly.
However, what has not yet been answered—and I do not propose to prolong this discussion further, having made my point—is the initial matter with which I was concerned; that when the matter was put to the House previously no answer was given to the points raised by myself and noble Lords on the Liberal Benches. I certainly would not accuse the noble Lord, Lord Gridley, of behaving in the way I described. Nevertheless, there has been a Tory political broadcast and many things have constantly been said about this matter, but I was referring to comments and various remarks that have been said and written by the Opposition.
I was quite rightly making the point that, if this was one of the "big flags" of the Opposition in regard to this Bill, I did not think that it had been handled in the right or most effective way. I was pointing out that we had still had no answers to the quite substantial points which I had made on the merits of the Amendment, and which were quite apart from the principle or policy behind them. However. I do not intend to take this any further, and I shall leave any other action which needs to be taken to be considered in another place.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness for saying that she will accept the Amendment, and to add a further word of explanation. I am quite prepared to answer all the points which the noble Baroness has raised and I would do so this afternoon, but I had thought that we wanted to get on now. The reason why I did not make an extensive speech was that all this arose at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, at a time when we had agreed to conclude the business of the day after a very long week. I am in no way afraid to answer the points which have been raised, and I should be very happy
1186
to do so now or on Third Reading if that was called for. However, I felt that we had gone over this fairly thoroughly and I had not intended to pursue it. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for saying that she will not oppose the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 67B.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 11, leave out paragraph 13.—(Baroness Young.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords I beg to move Amendment No. 68A.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of a dwelling-house and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, the Secretary of State shall not rely on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph.
( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order comprises a dwelling-house together with other land and the occupier of the dwelling-house duly objects to the order and that objection is not withdrawn, then, if the Secretary of State relies on the foregoing modifications made by this paragraph, he shall not confirm the compulsory purchase order without excluding the dwelling-house from that order.
( ) Where the land comprised in a compulsory purchase order consists of, or comprises with other land, a dwelling-house, the Secretary of State may disregard for the purpose of Schedule 1 to the Act of 1946 any objection made by the occupier of the dwelling-house which in the opinion of the Secretary of State amounts in substance to an objection to the provisions of the development plan defining the proposed use of the dwelling-house or any other land.
( ) In this paragraph "dwelling-house" means any building or part of a building in which a person is residing, and includes any other building or part of a building in which a person normally resides but from which he is temporarily absent.").—(Baroness Young.)
4.43 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 58, line 24, leave out ("development plan in sub-paragraph (3)(c)") and insert ("local plan in sub-paragraph (3)(b).").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady

1187
Birk, thought that this was a consequential Amendment. If so, she has another think coming, because it is a point of substance and I hope she has an answer to it. The noble Baroness is probably already aware that the definition of "development plan" for the purposes of this Schedule is that which is to be found in the Town and Country Planning Act. I said just now that the definition of "development plan" in the Town and Country Planning Act includes local plans. Section 20(1)(c) states that the development plan includes,
"any provisions of a local plan for the time being applicable to the district, together with the copy of the … approval thereof".
In paragraph 4(1) on page 58, we apparently have some other kind of local plan, which is being used instead of the development plan for the purpose of seeing whether the Secretary of State will dispense with a public inquiry. I am not at all sure why it is that the kind of local plan referred to in paragraph 4(1)(a) on page 58 is being substituted for the whole of the development plan, rather than for the local plan referred to in sub-paragraph (3)(b) on page 56. It it not a matter of a consequential Amendment. It would, incidentally, have been consequential to what I moved earlier, but it is also a point of substance and I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain it, because otherwise it seems to me that what we want is a reference to the local plan rather than to the development plan. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I referred to it as being consequential because it seemed to me to be very much on the same point, because Amendment No. 67, as I understood it, would remove the power of the Secretary of State to dispense with a public inquiry on the basis of any development plan other than approved or adopted local plans. I was dealing with them together. I believe that they are all part and parcel of the same thing because, until there is a local plan, the "development plan" for an area means the old-style plan as overlaid by the approved structure plan, if there is one. We then come back to the same argument about the structure plan. I do not believe that it will be of very great consequence whether this is in or out of the Bill and, if the noble Viscount
1188
feels strongly about Amendment No. 69, having disposed of the main Amendment which was Amendment No. 67, I do not feel that at this stage it will make very much difference if this alteration is made to the Bill. I am prepared to accept it.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I believe that the Amendment clarifies the position and on that basis I am very happy that it should go into the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should perhaps explain a point which I overlooked. The Amendment should read, "a local plan" rather than "the local plan". I regret the mistake which occurred because I bracketed the words which the noble Viscount was moving to delete. We should need a manuscript Amendment to make the necessary alteration.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, again, if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and the House will allow me to move a manuscript Amendment, I beg to move the following in place of Amendment No. 69:
Page 58, line 24, leave out the words ("the development plan in sub-paragraph (31(c)") and insert ("a local plan in sub-paragraph (3)(b).")
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: moved Aendment No. 69A:
Page 58, line 30, leave out ("confirming authority") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have moved this Amendment so that there may be on the Record the answer which I now know, but which may also have eluded some other people. As I understand it, the "confirming authority" both in line 30 and in line 35 is the confirming authority for the purposes of the Acquisition of Land Act and not for the purposes of the local plan part of the Town and Country Planning Act. In other words, the confirming authority is not the authority which confirms the local plan—that is, the local planning authority—but is, rather, the Secretary of State. If that can be confirmed, I believe it may be useful and dispose of one possible doubt in people's minds. For the purposes of obtaining confirmation, I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I hope I am not shortly to be told that Amendment No. 70 is on a point of substance.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: No, my Lords.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Viscount has said that it was felt that the drafting throughout the subparagraph should be consistent in referring either to the Secretary of State or to the confirming authority. It may be helpful if I read out the explanation for the use of these two phrases in the sub-paragraph so that, as the noble Viscount has said, it is on the Record.
The sub-paragraph does two distinct things. First, it gives a power to bring in a reserve procedure in certain circumstances; this is a power under the present Bill and therefore should be exercised by the Secretary of State (as in the first line of paragraph 4(1)). But, secondly, that reserve procedure has the practical effect of inserting sub-paragraphs 4(1)(a) and (b) into Schedule 1 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1946. The term used throughout that Schedule is" the confirming authority", and that term is defined as,
"the authority having power under the enactment in question to authorise the purchase".
For these complex reasons, the dual terminology is necessary.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 58, line 38, leave out ("the occupier") and insert ("the owner occupier, the occupier or the owner temporarily absent but who comes within the scope of sections 2 and 3 of the Rent Act 1974.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this point was discussed in Committee when it was pointed out that under paragraph 4(2) the occupier of a house would be notified under the special procedure and, if he objected, would have the right to a public inquiry. The point which was made in Committee was that only the occupier was mentioned in this sub-paragraph and that the owner-occupier and, perhaps more important, the person who owned the property but who might be tempor-
1190
arily abroad—perhaps serving abroad—was not mentioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, explained how this had arisen in the Bill and said that this sub-paragraph had been inserted in another place at the instigation of the Opposition. He subsequently wrote to me, for which I am most grateful, and said that if a house was to be compulsorily purchased the owner would be served with a compulsory purchase order. But the purpose of the Amendment—which I am sure is defective in its character—still comes back to the point where an occupier under subparagraph (2) will have the automatic right of inquiry, it appears that the owner, if not an occupier, may not. I hope that for that reason the noble Lord can give me an explanation. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Earl said, at the Committee stage he asked me whether an owner-occupier of a house serving abroad would receive notice where, while he was away, the property was deemed to be development land. The answer is that he or she would receive notice of the making of the compulsory purchase order, and that was the point on which I corresponded with the noble Earl. However, the present Amendment would go further, and give to certain types of temporarily absent owner-occupier a right to a public inquiry when the reserve procedures were in operation. We accept the spirit behind the Amendment, that where an owner-occupier is bona fide temporarily away from his house (for instance, a Serviceman abroad, which was the example given by the noble Earl at the Committee stage) but fully intends to return to his house, then he should in practice receive the same treatment as if he were still in residence. But there are problems in defining this arrangement in precise legal terms so that it covers all the cases which ought to be covered, on the one hand, but on the other hand does not go too wide and bring in cases where the absence could not really be described as a temporary one. The present Amendment goes too wide; we do not believe that it achieves the right result, and we are not clear that the sensible result, which I think both the noble Earl and the Government want, can be achieved in leglislation.
We therefore propose to achieve the spirit of the Amendment administratively

1191
so that, where an owner-occupier was genuinely temporarily absent, the Secretary of State would exercise his discretion to hold a public inquiry, so that such a person would be put in the same position as if he or she were a residential occupier. I hope that with that clear assurance on this important point which the noble Earl has raised he will not press this Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. It gives me great pleasure to be grateful, as it happens so rarely. But I wish to make the point that I presume that the acquiring authority would serve the CPO notice on the temporarily absent owner, or indeed, on any owner who was away, thus alerting him to the right which, for administrative reasons, would be brought in at a later date. This action would ensure that the owner knows of his right automatically to have an inquiry. If such action were not taken, he may not know that.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him to repeat the early part of what he has just said. I was so astonished at the gratitude with which he greeted my remarks that I confess I did not hear the earlier part of what he said.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am always delighted to repeat what perhaps I did not put too clearly. I was saying that I am very grateful for the spirit of the noble Lord's reply. I understood him to say that the Secretary of State would accept the point—but not put it into legislation—that if there was an absentee owner, who was serving abroad on Her Majesty's service for one reason or another, he would have the right under this sub-paragraph (2), as the occupier. The point I am putting to the noble Lord is how will such an owner know that he has that right? Would information on that right be included in the notice which, I presume, would be served on him in connection with the compulsory purchase order?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if, by leave of the House, I may attempt to answer the noble Earl's question, I should say that this would not be attached to the compulsory purchase order in an addendum or note, but the owner, when he or she received the notice of the
1192
making of the compulsory purchase order would, as I think the noble Viscount said earlier, probably wish to object; this would be the normal course of events. It would be at that stage that the Secretary of State would exercise the discretion which I have indicated he would exercise in these cases.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, and I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.56 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 60, line 13, at end insert—
Special Parliamentary Procedure
("7A.—(1) For paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 of the Land Acquisitions Act 1946 there shall be substituted the following paragraph:
"12.—(1) A compulsory purchase order, in so far as it authorises the purchase of land being, or being the site of, an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest, or of any other land of a nature specified by an order of the Secretary of State, shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure unless the Secretary of State certifies that the acquiring authority has entered into an undertaking with the Secretary of State to observe such conditions as to the use of the land as in his opinion are requisite having regard to the nature thereof
(2) Within twelve months of the first appointed day under Clause 7 of this Act the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament an order specifying the land to which paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 of the Acquisition of Land Act 1946 shall apply.
(3) An order made under the last subparagraph shall not be effective until a draft has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) Before making the above draft order the Secretary of State shall consult with the Statutory advisory bodies concerned, and such other bodies as may seem to him expedient.".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 72 and at the same time speak to a manuscript Amendment to sub-paragraph (2) of it to delete the words:
"Within twelve months of the first appointed day under Clause 7 of this Act …"
Speaking now to the suggested Amendment to Amendment No. 72, I invite the House to consider with me the usefulness of special Parliamentary procedure for protecting special categories of

1193
land and the issue of whether the use of special Parliamentary procedure should, because of the appearance of this Bill, in due course be extended. We have had one previous short debate on my Amendment No. 206B to Clause 40, which appears in columns 461 to 465 of the Official Report of the Committee stage. I recognise that in moving that Amendment I gave the noble Baroness and the noble Lord opposite very little notice of my intentions. But the short debate which we then had has given me useful material to digest and reflect upon, and I now put forward—and I apologise for needing to take a little time over it—a refinement of my earlier proposals, which I hope will be acceptable to the House and to the Government.
Referring to the previous debate, I accept particularly and entirely that we cannot take decisions now, at this stage, on this Bill, about what further categories of land, besides sites of ancient monuments, commons and National Trust land, should be protected by the special Parliamentary procedure. I also accept—this is another point that the noble Baroness made—that Clause 40 is not the best place in the Bill to deal with this matter. Therefore I come at it in Schedule 4, where we are making other modifications to the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation Procedure) Act, which is the original source of special Parliamentary procedure.
The situation we are dealing with is this. Under the 1946 Act—Part III of Schedule 1 in particular—there are four main categories of land which are given extra protection against compulsory purchase. First, there is land owned by the National Trust; that is, inalienable land, which is referred to in paragraph 9. Secondly, there is the land of statutory undertakers, referred to in paragraph 10. Thirdly, there is land forming part of commons or allotment, referred to in paragraph 11, and land which is designated as the site of an ancient monument. Protection of National Trust land, which is mentioned in this Bill, remains unchanged. Protection of commons remains unchanged by the Bill, though mentioned in it, although the special Parliamentary procedure could always be avoided where the Secretary of State certified that he was satisfied that land had been given in exchange for that taken by the compulsory purchase order. The
1194
protection of the special Parliamentary procedure for the land belonging to the statutory undertakers is being removed by this Bill; that was what Clause 10 dealt with. So this leaves the protection of special Parliamentary procedure for designated land; that is in paragraph 12.
My first submission to the House is that this last category of designated land is, in any case, badly overdue for consideration and that while no conclusions about what should be done can possibly be reached here and now it would be wrong, in a Bill which does so much to promote and indeed to require the compulsory acquisition of land, not to take the opportunity to start and to stimulate a consideration of the protection of designated land and to provide now for possible changes in due course to meet the new situation.
May I remind the House of how matters stood in 1946, when this legislation was first put on the Statute Book, and how they stand now? In 1946 the inalienable land of the National Trust, commons land, land of statutory undertakers and ancient monument sites were subject to special Parliamentaray procedure. The only land protected, irrespective of who owned it and how it was used, comprised the ancient monuments, and the reason for that was that in 1946 this was the only kind of nationally designated land that existed. In 1946 there were no National Parks; it was several years before there were any areas of outstanding natural beauty; we had no heritage coasts; and, in the urban areas, there were no conservation areas and we had not begun on the process of listing historic buildings.
Yet, despite those tremendous changes, there has been only one change to paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Land Acquisition Act 1946, in which the application of special Parliamentary procedure to designated land was considered. That was in the case of compulsory purchase orders by water undertakers in the National Parks, and that matter was considered in the Water Resources Act 1971. There, Parliament took the view—and took it quite emphatically—that special Parliamentary procedure should be applied; applied it was, and applied it is. So we now have

1195
a situation which is lone overdue for overhaul and highly anomalous. My Amendment makes possible a start—a very gentle and modest start—to putting it right.
Perhaps your Lordships would be kind enough now to look at the terms of my Amendment. There, in the proposed new paragraph 12, by adding the words,
"of any other land of a nature specified by an order of the Secretary of State",
to the existing paragraph, it provides for other kinds of land to be covered by the protection of special Parliamentary procedure under paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Act, and that is all at this stage.
My Amendment then goes on, in sub-paragraph (4), to invite the Secretary of State to consult with other statutory bodies, such as the Countryside Commission and the Historic Buildings Councils, and other non-statutory bodies, such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the Civic Trust and the amenity societies, and, in the light of what they say and of what he thinks, to decide what kinds of land to bring into the protection afforded by paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 and to do that by order. My Amendment then goes on, in paragraphs (2) and (3), to invite Parliament to approve those orders whenever they are laid; and your Lordships will notice that by the manuscript Amendment I am not asking the Secretary of State to achieve this by any time, though I think it would be as well for it to be done before the effects of this Bill begin to bite hard. Parliament, I think, should approve the orders, because after all it is their Parliamentary procedure which will be involved.
My Lords, I accept that it will be difficult to decide how to draw the lines among these various categories of designated land; yet it would be impossible to draw them more anomalously than they are drawn now. What will be helpful, however, is the fact that paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the 1946 Act provides as an alternative to special Parliamentary procedure a certificate from the Secretary of State to the effect that special Parliamentary procedure can, in his view, be dispensed with where he is satisfied that a suitable undertaking or agreement about the management of the land in question by the authority that is in the process of acquiring it has been
1196
entered into. This kind of agreement about management—a management agreement—is just the kind of thing which the Countryside Commission, in particular, are always trying to secure to protect the best of our countryside while leaving its ownership undisturbed. My Lords, I commend this Amendment to the House and hope that it finds favour with the Government. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved manuscript Amendment 72B to Amendment No. 72:
In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 12 leave out from the beginning to "the" in line 2.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have spoken to this Manuscript Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was intrigued by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he reminded us that he had moved a similar Amendment to Clause 40 and when he said that he had found it was the wrong place and that he had now "come at it" in Schedule 4. He has certainly "come at it" as if on a white charger, and has taken us for a conservationist trip around the legislation from 1946 onwards, which I found extremely interesting but which, if he will forgive me for saying so, is completely irrelevant to the Bill which we are discussing today. His Amendment, as he is possibly aware, has a certain number of technical defects, one of which he has certainly righted in his manuscript Amendment No. 72B. Nevertheless, this is not the reason why his Amendment, though it can be considered and discussed, is not acceptable at this time and in this Bill.
The fact that legislation may be badly overdue in many instances—and I think we can ail think of a great many places and areas where this is so—does not necessarily mean that you can just pop it into any Bill that happens to be passing along the way. They are not vehicles for this sort of thing. While I very much appreciate his position and sympathise with him in it—I would probably do the same thing myself, and have done it in the past; that is, grabbed at any bus that happened to be passing and on it tried to get right the particular bee which was in my bonnet—there are very grave difficulties, and I am afraid I shall briefly have to repeat, more or less, the points I made on Committee stage when he moved

1197
a similar Amendment. On that occasion he drew attention, as he has today, to the number of categories of land which have been given special national significance and which, in his opinion, deserved special protection. He also mentioned then, as he has now, the Water Resources Act and the fact that CPOs were made subject to special Parliamentary procedure where the purpose was to develop reservoirs in National Parks. Although then, as now, he was evidently not advocating the application of special Parliamentary procedure to any particular category of area, he thought the opportunity should be taken in the Bill to deal with the extension of that procedure.
I can only say again that the Community Land Bill does not introduce any new policy in relation to, for example, sites of ancient monuments, which he mentioned, or indeed National Parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. Nor is there anything about the community land scheme which suggests that such areas which are already well protected under the planning machinery are more likely to be at risk of compulsory purchase by virtue of this scheme.
I can only assure the noble Lord personally that certainly part of my Departmental duties are concerned with conservation and it will be something that I shall be watching with hawk-like eyes. Therefore, as I have said, the Government are unable to accept that this should be used as a vehicle for imposing on the Secretary of State a duty to bring forward proposals for adding what would be innumerable new categories of land to the special Parliamentary procedure. I have no doubt that there will be opportunities under more specific legislation to consider the point that the noble Lord has raised. Knowing the activities, the vigilance and energy of the noble Lord, I am sure that he will not let one Hass him by. Having been able to get this eloquently off his chest, I hope that he will now withdraw his Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not quite so sure about that. The noble Baroness has been very complimentary and said what I hoped she would say on what would have provoked me into pressing my Amendment if she had not said it. She recognises that this job needs to be done but says that this is not a
1198
good moment to do it. That I rather dispute.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I did not say that. I said that this was not the right way or place to do it, which is quite different.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am going to ask the noble Baroness whether she can be a little more forthcoming for that might help me. The anomalies to which I alluded, the lack of any progress except for the rather odd one about the water undertakers in the National Parks, are due to the fact that this special Parliamentary procedure is not very popular with the officials who have to face it. No doubt it would have been left for quite along time and could be left in the ordinary course of events but we are dealing here with a Bill which will enormously increase the number and extent of compulsory purchase orders for acquiring land by local authorities. This is the moment, even if the Government may not have thought of it, when we should consider whether the special Parliamentary procedure which was designed specifically to protect certain categories of land should now be looked at again and the protection widened to cover other pieces of land.
My Lords, I am not in the least moved by any minor technical defects there might be in my Amendment, because if we press it the Government could easily correct them. What I should like to have from the noble Baroness is a fairly clear assurance—clearer than she has given already—that if she does not accept this Amendment, she will provide for a reconsideration of the use of special Parliamentary procedure to safeguard the special categories of designated land when they are faced with compulsory purchase orders. In that event, I might consider removing my Amendment. But I want her to take on board and to agree with me that this is the moment to think about it even if this is not the right Bill.
I cannot believe that she is occupying the seat that I occupied in the Department of the Environment, shouldering the same responsibilites, without recognising that the protection of this designated land needs to be reconsidered, particularly in the light of the effect of this Bill. Perhaps she could respond to that,

1199
with the leave of the House, before I decide what to do.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, is not the fact of the matter that if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, were sitting where the noble Baroness is sitting and she had addressed to him the arguments that he addressed to her this afternoon, she would have received from him precisely the answer that she has given to him on this occasion? The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, knows perfectly well that the noble Baroness is quite right in saying that this is not the measure in which to try to achieve this object, however desirable it may be. He also knows perfectly well that if he had been sitting in her place he would have used almost precisely the words that she has used to the House.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether I could respond to that. When I was sitting in the seat the noble Baroness now occupies and was faced on the Water Resources Bill with this proposition by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I acceded to his suggestion.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it is time this to-ing and fro-ing of words stopped. Although we may have sat in each other's seats, different Governments have different styles and so have different people and they express themselves in different ways. We have a number of Amendments to get through and limited time tonight. All that I can say is that I cannot give the noble Lord any assurances. I am not prepared to do so. I have made clear my position and the Government's position over this Amendment and there is nothing further to add to it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Baroness that I shall press this Amendment.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 72B) to Amendment No. 72 shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 93; Not-Contents, 71.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gainford, L.

Balerno, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Newall, L.

Balfour, E.

Glendevon, L.

Northchurch, B.

Barnby, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Goschen, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Blake, L.

Grenfell, L.

Pike, B.

Brecon, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Camoys, L.

Halsbury, E.

Rhyl, L.

Carrington, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rochdale, V.

Cathcart, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harvington, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandys. L. [Teller.]

Cottesloe, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Cowley, E.

Inglewood, L.

Sherfield, L.

Craigton, L.

Kemsley, V.

Somers, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stamp, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Daventry, V.

Lonsdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Denham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lyell, L.

Tenby, V.

Dundee, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Thorneycroft, L.

Eccles, V.

Mansfield, E.

Tranmire, L.

Elles, B.

Margadale, L.

Vernon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Vickers, B.

Elton, L.

Mersey, V.

Vivian, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Middleton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Exeter, M.

Monck, V.

Yarborough, E.

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Young, B.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Birk, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Balogh, L.

Blyton, L.

Castle, L.

Banks, L.

Brockway, L.

Champion, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Chorley, L.

Collison, L.

Henley, L.

Popplewell, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Raglan, L.

Crook, L.

Hoy, L.

Rhodes, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Hughes, L.

Rusholme, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Davids, V.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Darwen, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Simon, V.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Slater, L.

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

Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

Snow, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Foot, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Summerskill, B.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Milford, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

George-Brown, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wigoder, L.

Hale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hall, V.

Pannell, L.

Wise, L.

Hampton, L.

Peddie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Platt, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment to Amendment agreed to accordingly.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 72, as amended, be agreed to.
5.26 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 72A:
Page 60, line 13, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of a compulsory purchase order made, in whole or in part, under section 15(3)(a) of this Act, paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 1 (challenge to validity of orders) shall have effect as if after the words "in subsection (1) of section one of this Act" there were inserted the words "or is based upon insufficient evidence that the land was required for the purpose stated by the acquiring authority",".
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a technical point which arises out of a discussion that we had in Committee on the provisions of Clause 15(3)(a), and the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was good enough to write to me a letter about it which I found rather surprising. I will pick out the relevant paragraph of his letter:
"You will appreciate that the drafting of the subsection now means that the judgment of whether the land is or is not required"—
that is to say, land required to facilitate the development of other development land—
"is a matter not of opinion but of fact. This means that the decision must rest, in the last resort, not with the authority or even with the Secretary of State, but with the courts. Your suggestion that land could be bought compulsorily under this power without any particular reason being given is therefore wrong. I can-
1202
not imigine that if the matter were ever tested the courts would take the line you are suggesting; they would surely require the authority to demonstrate the need for the land."
That is not the way it works. If you take an ordinary compulsory purchase order, whether under this provision or anything else, to the courts under the powers in paragraph 15 of Schedule 1 to the Acquisition of Land Act 1946, the courts do not normally look behind, first, the inspector's report, and particularly his conclusions, recommendations and findings; and, secondly, the Secretary of State's decision letter, which usually adopts the conclusions and the recommendations. It is only where the argument can be raised that upon the face of the document there is no evidence at all that could have been used by the Secretary of State to confirm the compulsory purchase order, that there is no evidence at all land was required, that the courts would interfere. There is one other ground; that is, the decision is so unreasonable that no Secretary of State could make it.
I want to make it plain whether the Government thought in this case it would be possible to test in front of the courts, upon an appeal against a compulsory purchase order's confirmation, the merits of whether the land was or was not strictly required as set out in Clause 15(3)(a). Unless one inserts the words such as I have put down in this Amendment, I do not believe the courts would look at the merits of the argument of the local authority. I therefore put down this Amendment in order to find out what would happen, whether the Government thought there would be a departure from what ordinarily happens on an appeal against

1203
a compulsory purchase order, or whether we would be in the same position where we simply have to look at the Secretary of State's decision letter and any reference in it to the inspector's report. I hope that the noble Lord can clarify what he said in his letter, because at the moment I am a little confused. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Viscount said, we had a debate on this matter at Committee stage, and I have written to him about it. We are here concerned with the powers in Clause 15(3)(a) for an authority to acquire land adjoining the main acquisition which is required for the purpose of executing works for facilitating its development or use. It is a limited ancillary power. What the noble Viscount is now concerned with is whether the role of the courts is adequate in relation to the scope of the provision.
It is necessary to distinguish between the vires of the order—in other words whether the enabling Act gives the authority the necessary powers, and the merits of the order—in other words, whether or not it ought to be made. The latter is solely a matter for the Secretary of State, and it has been generally accepted that the courts are not the right kind of body for deciding what are essentially administrative matters. What is absolutely right is that the courts should be able to consider the vires of an order, and it is at this point that they will be able to take a view on whether or not the land in the order was required for the development of the main site. This is essentially a matter of fact rather than judgment: and clearly if the authority could show no good reason why the land was required, the court would have no alternative but to quash the order as ultra vires.
It is true that the courts will not usually look behind the Secretary of State's decision, if there is some evidence that the authority required the land for the purpose stated. But this will have been challenged at the public inquiry. The trouble with the Amendment of the noble Viscount is simply that it is likely to go too far. It could extend the role of the courts beyond their proper role of considering vires and into the consideration of the merits of an order. It is unacceptable to introduce the courts at that stage in that area. If this idea were accepted
1204
for this point there would no doubt be pressure to extend it to cover other cases, and it would soon undermine the whole basis of compulsory purchase procedure. Given that the test of "requirement" is an objective one, so that there is at least the basis for an action in the courts as in other CPO cases, the Government feel that they have gone as far as they can in restricting the scope of what is intended to be a narrow ancillary power.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for having most adequately added to the explanation given in his letter. I thought the situation was as he has just outlined and that probably was what the Government intended, and indeed it would be precisely in line with what happens in every other case. I am perfectly satisfied with the explanation which has been given, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 66, line 14, after ("suit") insert ("or in Scotland the instance").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I had a note to the effect that this was an Amendment which had been put down in the name of the noble Earl. It may be that that is not the case, but that we have managed to find a point in the Bill which the noble Earl has missed in his series of Amendments relating to this point, in which case I beg to move.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, this is an Amendment consequential on those moved in Committee in another place. As an earlier stage I had asked for the paragraph in question to be left out, and obviously I could not then move the Amendment as well. I asked the Government whether they would be kind enough to put down this Amendment for me at Report stage, which they have duly done. I am very grateful, and that is all I need to say.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 71, line 30, at end insert ("and in particular the assessment of compensation under paragraph 12(4) may be reopened.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, in Committee we had from the noble Lord

1205
opposite, after my noble friend Lord Sandford had moved an Amendment for me, a very useful explanation of Part IV of this Schedule and I now understand its purpose very much better than I did earlier. However, I should like express clarification on one point. Let us suppose that land has been bought for housing under the Housing Acts by a housing authority before this Bill comes into operation, and they subsequently decide that they wish to appropriate the land under Part IV, so that it becomes governed by the provisions of this Schedule and they can therefore override any remaining private rights or difficulties. Let us then suppose that they wish to appropriate it for industrial purposes, but they have overridden—and this might well have had to be done in front of the Lands Tribunal—a restrictive covenant on the land that it was to be used only for housing at a density of one house per acre or something like that and they wish to build very much in excess of that, compensation will probably have been payable to a person who has the benefit of the restrictive covenant, or may already have been paid under paragraph 12(4).
When they appropriate it to the second purpose, the industrial purpose, it seems to me probable that extra compensation will be payable in order to reflect the further breach of the restrictive covenant; and, in those circumstances, it would be right, upon the appropriation, to reopen for the benefit of the person who used to have the restrictive covenant the question of compensation under paragraph 12(4), because, after all, he will be worse damaged by the use which is now proposed to be made of it under the appropriation, than he was under the original acquisition and for which—the first one only—he has been compensated. I hope I have explained this rather complicated point clearly. I believe it is correct for us to see that, if this facility is to be offered to local authorities so that they can take advantage of Part III of the Schedule, the private citizen should not be done down as a purely subsidiary and probably unintentional effect. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, what the noble Viscount said was very complicated. There are two separate points here, and perhaps I ought to take them
1206
separately to help clarify the matter. The purpose of sub-paragraph (1)(a) of paragraph 25 is to enable the local authority or planning board to appropriate land for the purposes of Part III of the Bill and thus, in effect, bring it within the ambit of the land scheme so that advantage can be taken of the provisions of Part III of Schedule 4; for example, the power to override easements or other rights on payment of compensation. It may be—I am not entirely clear about this—that the noble Viscount is basing his Amendment on the proposition that compensation may already have been paid under paragraph 12(4), but the appropriation may lead to some new or wider interference with rights or a breach of restrictions upon user justifying additional compensation.
I am advised that this proposition is misconceived, since for compensation to have been paid under paragraph 12(4) the land must have been acquired under Part III of the Bill or already appropriated for the purposes of Part III. There is no case in which rights may have been overridden under paragraph 12(4) unless, before that overriding, the land was acquired or appropriated for the purposes of Part III. The separate point which the noble Viscount may also have been covering would arise in a case in which, after rights have been overridden under paragraph 12(1), the land is appropriated to other purposes. However, the amount of compensation payable for breach of right bears no relationship to the purpose for which the land is held. The compensation is assessable under the enactments mentioned at paragraph 12(1), as for other similar cases. There is no reason why the owner of a right should be entitled to more compensation after land has been appropriated for any purpose, so there would be no point in that case in reopening the assessment. I think that deals with both points which, as I understood him, the noble Viscount was putting forward.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think it does, but it may be that we ought not to spend a great deal of time on this matter on the Floor of the House. Perhaps the noble Lord would be good enough to afford me a moment to see him about it. Let me just take the second proposition, that the local authority appropriates land which it has acquired under Part III and

1207
for which compensation has been paid under paragraph 12. It will have had to acquire it, now that paragraph 4(2) has come out, for certain specified reasons under the Acquisition of Land Act. Therefore, the compensation payable under paragraph 12 will relate to the purpose for which it has been bought. Let me suppose that they subsequently appropriated it for another purpose for which they did not buy it, and it is a more obnoxious purpose so far as it affects the person who used to have the restrictive covenant, than the purpose for which they originally acquired it. In those circumstances, it seems to me that one ought to make clear whether or not the person who lost the benefit of the restrictive covenant gets a second dose of compensation. In those circumstances, I think he ought to, and that is the point I am making.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, agree with the noble Viscount. I take that point. I am advised that to override for different purposes would be a different breach of the covenant. It would be a new breach of the covenant and further compensation would be payable in that case, without any express provision being put in the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether before my noble friend withdraws the Amendment I may make another point which I think arises here as well as anywhere else on the Bill. This point emerges from rather fuller discussions than was possible earlier on which I have had with the Town and Country Planning Association. I wonder whether the noble Lord can explain whether it is true that local authorities under this Bill cannot buy on behalf of the land account land they have already purchased under other powers. If this is so, it appears there is some difficulty because they might, for instance, own half the property comprising a central development area which they have acquired under one set of powers and they could then acquire another half under the powers of this Bill but would not be able, as it were, to join the two together for the purposes of financing them, disposing of them, developing them and so on. It would be quite unreason-
1208
able for me to expect an answer straight off the cuff from the noble Lord in answer to that question, because I have not given him notice, but perhaps he can drop me a line before the next stage and reassure me. That will probably suffice.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it would be unreasonable for me to speak more than twice on the Amendment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, all I have to do, if I may have the leave of the House to speak for a third time, is to thank the noble Lord. I very much hope that the Lands Tribunal will take the same view of the law as he does. At any rate, I am reinforced in the knowledge that the Government intend that it should. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 76:
Leave out Schedule 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that we have dealt with all the points that could possibly be dealt with in the course of the debate on Schedule 4. The only one on which an undertaking had been given which has not arisen is to do with commons. That was a matter pressed by my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith, but I think that as she is not here we can move on.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, before my noble friend withdraws his Amendment, I should like to raise one question on Schedule 4 of which I have given notice to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. It relates to paragraph (2)(b) at line 22 of page 56. Under this paragraph, as the House will by now be well aware, the Secretary of State has a very special power when a compulsory purchase order has been laid and objection to that order has been made. He may call a public inquiry or call a private inquiry—which is covered by this sub-paragraph (2)(b)—or he may call no inquiry at all, save that he will have to do so in the circumstances of sub-paragraph (3). This question of the private inquiry has been a matter of some concern, and I do not think we discussed this point on Committee. It is a matter of concern, particularly to amenity societies.

1209
The purpose of raising this question is to seek elucidation from the noble Baroness. If a compulsory purchase order is laid and the owner objects and agrees to a private hearing under sub-paragraph (2)(b), is there any right at all for amenity societies or some body which represents local opinion to state their case as to whether the land in question is suitable for relevant development? It is a matter of some concern and, as the noble Baroness is perhaps aware, it has been expressed outside on many occasions. I hope the noble Baroness can now reply to that question. The second question, which arises from the first, is, if in fact an amenity society wishes to object will the Secretary of State automatically transfer the private hearing into a public hearing?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, paragraph 4(2)(b) is in identical words to the existing paragraph 4(2)(b) of Schedule 1 to the 1946 Act. This means that the opportunity to hold either a public inquiry or a hearing applies to CPOs under all existing Acts. In practice, as the noble Earl is aware, hearings are held when only minor matters are in dispute. There is no reason why acquisitions of development land should be treated differently in this respect from acquisitions under all other powers. The Secretary of State has a discretion, but if only a minor matter not worth an inquiry were in dispute and the Secretary of State had no power to have a hearing, as the Amendment proposes, he might simply decide not to have an inquiry. So the objector, who would have got an inquiry under the Bill as it is at the present moment, gets nothing at all.
On the noble Earl's general point about amenity societies, the situation is exactly the same. They are no worse off under this Bill—and I do not propose to go into the other point which does not really arise on Schedule 4. But I hope I have assured him on the point which was the main substantive point on which he wanted an assurance.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, it might be convenient if I just very briefly answered the question which the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, asked me on the last Amendment which he dealt with. I think the short answer to the question he asked is that there is no link between
1210
the powers of acquisition and the land account. The land account deals with land which is used for private development.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:
5.48 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 15, line 6, leave out ("the area of each county authority") and insert ("each county area").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 77 and with it to embark on a major exercise involving Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 82 to 89, 93, 94, 96, 97, 117, 119 and 122. Strange to say, all those 20 Amendments are needed to achieve something to which I spoke at the Committee stage; namely, one land and acquisition management scheme for the area of the Peak Park. It is no doubt a surprise to many of your Lordships to know that we have to do this, as I think, in Parliament, with 20 Amendments, in order to get the arrangements for one single land and acquisition management scheme right.
Although the Government have been correct in hoping and waiting for the local authorities in the area to work out arrangements for themselves, we must face the fact that it is the need for things like this in the area of the Peak Park which arouses the most intense local controversy. Party politics are thrown into it; local loyalties between six proud counties and two proud cities are involved; there is the usual continuing conflict between town and country and there is controversy between conservationists and those who are working in the Park to exploit the minerals there. Therefore, it is not surprising that the issue comes to Parliament to be settled.
In prescribing the proper arrangements for a land acquisition and management scheme for the Peak Park, we have three alternatives. We could have six counties and nine districts, which is the number of separate local authorities with territory in the Peak Park, preparing their own land acquisition and management schemes

1211
with some measure of consistency between them where they bear upon the Park and we could leave the Peak Park Planning Board to co-ordinate them as best they could within their own area. As I said at a previous stage, that would be asking the Peak Park Planning Board to undertake an almost impossible task. Alternatively, the Peak Park Planning Board could make the plan for their area and adjust it to the requirements of the other 15 local authorities with land in the area of the Park. Thirdly, we could continue to do nothing and leave it to the locals to sort it out. That is the policy which has been correctly followed so far by Her Majesty's Government. It is a policy which normally I would commend and one which normally works, but we have to face the fact that it has not worked in this case. If these schemes are to be ready to operate under the Bill I do not think that we can leave it any longer.
The factors that have to be borne in mind in coming to the right decision are that the Peak Park Planning Board are the structure planning authority for the whole of their area. In that respect they have functions to discharge under Statute which otherwise would be exercised by the counties in their area. But they are not being exercised by the counties they are being exercised by the Board. In addition, the Peak Park Planning Board are the local plan and development control authority for the whole of their area. In that respect they have functions otherwise held by the districts but not held by them in respect of territory in the Park. Thirdly, the Peak Park Planning Board already have a further new duty to prepare a National Park plan for their area which, among other things, will be the basis for land acquisition and management in their area.
I am grateful for the support of Her Majesty's Government in so far as they have prepared these Amendments, although at the price of inflicting 20 Amendments upon the House in order to do what I thought I had done reasonably well with two Amendments. I am aware that there is intense local controversy about this and that if we try to please everybody we shall get nothing done. I am entirely convinced that the only practical step is for Parliament to deal with
1212
this matter in the Bill and by these Amendments, the central ones being Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, to give to the Peak Park Planning Board the duty of preparing the land acquisition and management scheme for the entire area of their Park. The way in which they will do this in order to discharge their own functions and at the same time to leave the appropriate functions with the districts and counties is as I described at col. 113 of the Official Report during the Committee stage. I do not wish to repeat that argument now. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Sandford. Indeed, I should have supported him at Committee stage had I been able to be here. I should declare an interest in that until fairly recently I was a member of the Peak Park Planning Board. The position has been clearly stated by my noble friend and the only point I wish to stress is that although the compromise formula which was put forward initially by Derbyshire County Council and adopted by the other county councils for solving this problem is theoretically acceptable, in that it recognises the principle of uniformity within the different land acquisition and management schemes which are to be prepared by the different county councils, in practice it is very unlikely to work. It is extremely clumsy and bureaucratic and in fact there is no guarantee that uniformity will prevail. The Peak Park Planning Board certainly think that it will not work.
It is interesting to observe that there is no division of opinion on this issue within the Peak Park Planning Board. This applies to the county council representatives as well as to the nominated members, who represent one-third. The Board are virtually unanimous on this issue and the county council members are adopting a view which opposes that of their councils.
By general consent the Peak Park is one of the best administered, if not the best administered Park in the country. As my noble friend has said, they are the planning authority for all of the land within their area. It seems to me to be only logical and sensible that they should also have responsibility for preparing a single land acquisition and management

1213
scheme for the Peak Park instead of the very complicated procedure that has been suggested by the county councils. Indeed, this would be in accordance with the positive planning side of the Bill which the noble Baroness stressed so much in the Second Reading debate.
In conclusion, as the author of the Sandford Report my noble friend Lord Sandford has greater experience of National Parks, how they work, how they should be administered and how they should not be administered than anybody else in your Lordships' House and most other people in the United Kingdom. Therefore, I hope that the Government and the House as a whole will accept this Amendment.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I assume that the Government will accept this series of Amendments. May I therefore commend the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his initiative in this matter and congratulate the Government for helping him to bring it about.
Lord CR AWSHAW: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Sandford mentioned that there are various views about this problem, and on this occasion I owe it to the House to say a few words expressing the contrary view and not to let the case go by default. As my noble friend Lord Sandford said, his Amendment highlights a considerable local problem; namely, what power should be exercised over a wide field, including housing and industry, either by the Peak Park Planning Board or by the various local authorities. This is not in any way a Party issue.
I should also tell the House that the Members of Parliament for West Derbyshire and the High Peak, who happen to be Conservatives, take the view, together with the six county councils and the district councils which are mentioned in Amendment No. 82, that there should not be a separate land acquisition and management scheme for the Park. However, they agree that it would be quite reasonable for each of the six county areas to include within their own land acquisition and management scheme a Part II in common form, for each county, so that the practical effect would be the operation of a single land acquisi-
1214
tion and management scheme for the area of the National Park.
I detect a feeling locally that the authorities feel that their powers and functions are gradually being eroded and that in several cases they are being handed over to the Peak Park Planning Board. I am aware that the Board are as to two-thirds made up of people from the local councils, but the system of nomination from district council to county council and then to the Board tends to make the Board remote from the people who live and work in the Park and for whom conservation is only a small part of the problems of daily life.
I do not want this afternoon to defend the system of land acquisition management schemes, but I fear that by putting this Amendment into the Bill we may aggravate the already rather strained relations between the local authorities and the Peak Park Planning Board. They are meeting on Friday to try to sort out the situation, and I feel it will be more fruitful if they are not faced with a verdict at this stage from the House of Lords.
6.1 p.m.
Lord CHAMPION: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, rightly stressed the importance of the Amendment to which Amendment No. 77 is a paving Amendment, and he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Vernon. For a long time I had an association with Derbyshire and I came to appreciate—indeed to love—the beautiful area embodied in this Peak District National Park. The creation of that Park was surely a fit and proper recognition of the outstanding nature of this area and of the necessity for preserving it for ourselves as well as for posterity. There is some uniqueness about this National Park for its area impinges on that of six county councils and clearly that would, on the surface, provide some justification for giving this Board exceptional and unique powers in relation to this Bill. But I think we have to recognise that, unlike all the local authorities given powers of acquisition and management under the terms of the Bill, if the Amendment were accepted these powers would be given to a joint body whose members are not directly elected by the people living within the area of the Park. Exceptions sometimes

1215
may be justifiable, but not I think in a case of this sort in which the Dowers of land acquisition and the making of management schemes are such a vital part of the whole concept of the Bill now before us.
As an old local government man I am strongly in favour of major decisions, such as the necessary decisions to be taken under this Bill, resting finally with the people who are directly responsible to their electors. This is something which we like in our democracy; it is something that we ought to do everything possible to preserve. But that does not necessarily mean that each of the local authorities should be in a position to take decisions which would be in conflict with the others covering the area. That would be a form of madness.
The sort of scheme which my noble friend Lord Melchett mentioned in Committee appears to me to have within it all the possibilities of securing uniform arrangements to cover the whole area, while at the same time—and this is the important point—preserving the status and the standing of the six local county councils concerned. Such an arrangement would be in the interests of all concerned for it would preserve—and this too is important—the good will and co-operation of the local authorities in the implementation of these very important provisions of the Bill.
I gather that considerable progress has already been made in agreeing a common form between counties and districts, and indeed there is to be a further meeting to discuss a draft form on the 7th November, following which the counties and districts are to meet the Peak Park Joint Planning Board on the 24th November. It will be seen therefore that they are all greatly involved in serious discussion to attempt to resolve what is admittedly a difficult situation.
The local authorities should be allowed to attempt to achieve a mutually satisfactory solution among themselves. It is only in that way that good will and co-operation in the implementation of the Bill can he achieved in the future. I understand of course that Amendments Nos. 77, 78, 79 and 81 are paving Amendments to Amendment No. 82 and the rest, but as I see it subsection (2) of this clause says:
1216
"The scheme shall be made, and from time to time revised, by all the authorities in the area…acting jointly".
I suppose the noble Lord's paving Amendments are somehow intended to cover the point of settling what authorities will be regarded as being in the area of the county authority—the county authority that he is proposing by the Amendments in the Bill; namely, the Peak District National Park Board. As I understand it, the words in that subsection (2) are intended to apply to the lesser authorities within the county area and not to the sort of situation which would obtain if the Peak Board were to become a county authority under the Bill. To consider the county authorities perhaps lesser authorities would surely not be conducive to harmony within such an area, and harmony surely is important in this connection.
In the consideration of all this there ought to be in our minds the fact that all the county councils and all the district authorities concerned are opposed to the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and I stress that this House ought to uphold the standing and the status of the elected county and district authorities, motivated as they must be by a feeling of serving the interests of the people who live and work within their area and who elect them for that purpose. In my view this Amendment ought to fail on the grounds of the preservation of something that is important to us; namely, local democracy.
6.6 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I rise to support these Amendments. Although I have not had experience of living in the Peak National Park, I have lived in another National Park—the Lake District —where similar circumstances have applied in the past. Where planning or any similar administration was the responsibility of the Lakes Planning Board some sort of uniformity was achieved through the area. This was important, even though some county councillors, whether they were from Cumberland, Westmorland or Lancashire, may have had their noses put out of joint. At least there was uniformity. Where various powers, and not least the highways (if I may give an example), remained the responsibility of the three separate counties there was no

1217
uniformity; there was no good overall plan at the end, and there was considerable friction along those inter-county boundaries. Therefore I hope that whatever is worked out, either by this Amendment or other means, at least uniformity throughout the Peak National Park will carry weight.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, referred to the fact that he was loth to see powers taken away from the elected local representatives. I agree wish him, and I was very pleased indeed to hear him say that. In my view it is something that we in Parliament must never lose sight of, but, if he will listen for one half-minute, I thought it came rather strangely from a noble Lord opposite during the debates on this Bill, when such an important part of the Bill is setting up authorities like the Land Authority for Wales, which are not elected, which are not answerable to any electors and which will have the most immense powers over the lives of people in the Principality. So I would say to the Minister that that particular principle to which the noble Lord has just attached such importance really does not carry much weight in this Bill, bearing in mind the many other proposals they are making where they are taking powers away from local representatives and putting them in the hands of others.
When they are thinking out this Amendment, I wish that the Government will bear in mind the importance of uniformity of administration, both as affecting the people living in the area for 52 weeks in the year as well as those who come to the area for their holidays, maybe for two weeks or three weeks. But it is the people who live there for 52 weeks in the year who are really the most important consideration.
6.11 p.m.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, I rise to help to dispel the loneliness of our Front Bench who have had little vocal support from this side. I hope they will succeed in resisting a series of Amendments which seem to me to be out of line with the general record of two of the noble Lords who are associated with this Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, with whom I should think I should be on the same side of the barricades when it comes to fighting for access to the countryside
1218
and the preservation of amenities there. It looks as if they are using their reputations as crusaders and champions of the rights of access to the amenities of the countryside to give a further pinprick to the Government, and to attempt to bring this Bill into derision.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, re-emphasised what I attempted to emphasise during Committee stage, which was the way in which this Amendment, or the intentions behind it, can be construed as being an attack upon the virtues and capacities of those in local government. I understand that certain noble Lords opposite, from their previous speeches in this House, have not the same regard for local government as some noble Lords on this side of the House. Their training has been in a different area. But some of us come here having become associated with public life through hour local government, and we have a great respect for it. What is more, we learned during that time that the larger the authority—I do not say the better the authority—the more proficient were the officers. We are not dealing here with a series of rural district council officers, where the surveyor is the engineer and the town planner all in one. We are dealing with authorities of large size, with vision, with people used to administering over a large area and using the capacity of their officers to see the future of that area and the best for large populations. These people are not to be classed in the same way as one would class the smaller local authority officials who, no matter what their virtues, are not always the most expert in their sphere.
I suggest that the town planners and the valuers who will be much in evidence during the operation of the land acquisition and management schemes are of the highest quality. It is absurd to suggest that the advice they would be given would be anything but in the interest of the general population of the country, because, after all, these places are not just parochial. These people know that. These areas are holiday resorts which give joy to thousands. I hope the Government will stick to their guns on this matter and that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will follow the precedent he set this afternoon, of seeming at one time to withdraw his Amendment and then taking it to a Division. Although he

1219
seems to be pushing his Amendment, I hope in the end, in the light of what is being said, he will withdraw it.
6.15 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, may I first stress what the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, said, which was that this is not a Party issue; there are obviously feelings on both sides of the House in different respects. It was unfortunate that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, attempted to make a Party political point to my noble friend Lord Champion. I do not think he was in the Chamber on Committee stage when the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made some very strong remarks to myself and other noble Lords on this side about the way the noble Viscount felt we were treating local authorities when we were discussing joint boards. We were accused of attempting to override the wishes of local authorities in that case where a minority of the local authorities—possibly one out of several —might not wish a joint board to be set up, and where we would override that minority wish.
Here, we are dealing with a situation, as I understand it, where all the local authorities involved do not agree with the Amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and all the local authorities have attempted to come to a compromise. I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, slightly overdid his list, because I think he included No. 96. My understanding was that that was an Amendment in the names of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, it is a blank.
Lord MELCHETT: Then Amendment No. 96 will not do either of us any harm! The noble Lord said he had had help in drafting the Amendments. That is certainly the case. It was not right for the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to assume that that meant we were supporting them. We on these Benches are always ready and eager to be as helpful as we can to noble Lords on all sides of the House. It was our view that if these Amendments were to be pressed into the Bill by a Division, then they should be properly drafted, and we did not want to waste time in debating niggling drafting points.
1220
That is the only reason why help was given in the drafting, and this does not imply support.
This is a difficult problem, and the differences of opinion on both sides of the House underline that. We have to decide who to please in a difficult local dispute. It has either to be the local authorities of the area, coupled with the two Conservative Members of Parliament who represent the area on the one hand, or the Peak Park Planning Board on the other. I should have thought, if not for Party political reasons for the sake of consistency, that the noble Lord would not be pressing the Amendment, because he would wish that the views of the local authorities should be respected. The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, mentioned the compromise put forward, which I do not intend to spell out in detail because I did so in Committee. No evidence has been produced that this compromise will not work quite satisfactorily. In practice, I cannot pretend to have very strong views on this, because I hope there will not be much relevant development taking place in the Peak Park Planning Board area, and I am sure that is a view common to all sides of the House. So the land acquisition and management scheme which is drawn up in either of the two ways, either as proposed by the Amendment or as it will be under the Bill as now drafted, will not be a document of devastating significance one way or the other.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, overlooked the fact that the clause operates on the basis that all the authorities in the area make the land acquisition and management scheme jointly, so all the authorities in the area of the Peak Park will have to participate in preparing a land acquisition and management scheme, whatever course is adopted; that is, whether the Bill stays as it is, or whether the Amendments are passed. The choice is between the Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, which could mean having a separate land acquisition and management scheme for the area of the Peak Park Planning Board prepared jointly by all the authorities involved in the area, or alternatively having six different bits of the Park dealt with in the land acquisition and management schemes for the six county areas. The compromise put

1221
forward by the local authorities involved is, of course, designed to ensure that those six separate land acquisition and management schemes should all deal with the Peak Park area in a consistent manner. That seems to me to be a reasonable compromise, and no more bureaucratic or difficult than will necessarily be the case if the Amendments are passed.
I hope the noble Lord will not press these Amendments. I think the fact that consultations and discussions are still continuing locally as the noble Lord, Lord Crawshaw, and my noble friend said—and indeed there is to be another meeting on Friday, and that the counties and districts are shortly to meet the Peak Park Planning Board again, would indicate that it would be wiser for your Lordships to leave this matter to be settled locally. I certainly would not advise the House to let the Amendments go into the Bill without the opinion of your Lordships being tested in the Division Lobby.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I think it is a difficult issue and it is unfortunate that we have to face it, but I think we must. Clearly, I did not underestimate the extent of the local controversy that exists about this matter. It is the only issue so far which has secured the participation of two members of the Party opposite in one of our debates; so it is clear that the ripples have reached Westminster from the Peak Park. If the counties wanted to find a good spokesman, they could have found nobody better than the noble Lord, Lord Champion, to make their case.
My Lords, two propositions are being put to us. One is that it would be better to leave this until Friday, or next week, or a little later in the month. But it has been left for several months already. We have the fact that here is the Peak Park Planning Board with clear functions and responsibilities in this field which they feel they can discharge effectively only in the way they have suggested, which gives plenty of scope to the adjacent and surrounding local authorities. Of course, they will be doing it all jointly, but it will be on the basis of their plan rather than on the basis of six separate county plans and nine separate district plans.
1222
The other case that has been put to us, by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, particularly, is that this Board is a remote Board and nobody on it is directly elected by the people living in the Park. I really do not think that is quite right. It has 33 members on it, of which two-thirds, 22, consist entirely of directly-elected councillors: eight from Derbyshire, two from Manchester, two from South Yorkshire, two from West Yorkshire, two from Staffordshire and two from Cheshire; four from the districts, one from West Derbyshire and one from High Peak, all directly elected.
Lord CASTLE: My Lords, are we using the phrase "directly elected" in the correct understanding of it? "Directly elected" means that they are elected to that position by their constituents. Here this is not so. In the case of this Board they are elected to the local authorities and appointed by the local authorities to the Board.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, that is correct; they have been elected by the people they are representing on the Board. When these proposals which we are now seeking to put into the Bill were formulated on the 18th July, there were no objections from any of these councillors from the six counties and the four districts including West Derbyshire and High Peak. So this is not a proposition which has been forced on those representatives against their will; there has been no opposition to it from any of those representatives on the Board. I would much rather not have to move these Amendments, still less to press them, if I had any confidence that it was possible by leaving it any longer for practical arrangements to be worked out. Alas!, I know from all my special experience, which it was my opportunity to acquire while I was a Minister, that these arrangements simply do not work, and the only way of getting proper administration and management in the National Parks, if we are to have them, is by providing a unified administration, having single directors and central bodies administering them. We can get representation of the people who live in the Park by making sure that the Boards and committees that administer the Parks consist primarily of elected councillors, and this is the case in this instance. I fully understand why there is much local controversy and why noble Lords speaking in this debate have felt

1223
it necessary to put forward the points they have made, but I feel that this Amendment needs to be imported into the Bill.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen. V.

Amulree, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Auckland, L.

Grenfell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balfour, E.

Gridley, L.

Pike, B.

Barrington, V.

Hampton, L.

Platt, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reigate, L.

Brecon, L.

Harvington, L.

Rhyl, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L.

Rochdale, V.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Rollo, L. [Teller.]

Carrington, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cathcart, E.

Ironside, L.

St. Davids, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kemsley, V.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Somers. L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Cowley, E.

Long, V.

Strang. L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Daventry, V.

Lyell, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Tenby, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vernon, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mansfield, E.

Vickers, B.

Elles, B.

Margadale, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

Wade, L.

Elton, L.

Middleton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Exeter, M.

Monck, L.

Wigoder, L.

Falkland, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Foot, L.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Gainford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Newall, L.

Bernstein, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Birk, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hall, V.

Peddie, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Harrison of Greenwich, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Hayter, L.

Raglan, L.

Castle, L. [Teller.]

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rhodes, L.

Champion, L. [Teller.]

Hoy, L.

Rusholme, L.

Collison, L.

Hughes, L.

Segal, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Crawshaw, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Crook, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Simon, V.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Leatherland, L.

Slater, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darwen, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

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

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Walston, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 together.
6.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 77) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 59.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 8, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area").
Page 15, line 11, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area"). —(Lord Sandford.)
6.37 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 15, line 28, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a probing Amendment because we found ourselves during the Committee stage in some trouble as to the precise meaning of Clause 16(7). The House will recall that under this subsection the scheme,
"shall not create any obligation enforceable in law."
Yet the Secretary of State apparently can, or does, have the power to make it enforceable. The question raised at Committee was how he did this, and whether it was by individual letter. At that time the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was kind enough to come to our rescue, as he has done so often in this Bill, and say that he thought that it would be a remarkable state of affairs if, without statutory backing, a letter or direction from the Secretary of State would have the force of law. Indeed, I think at a later stage the noble and learned Lord gave an official reply in which he expressed himself as not entirely happy. The noble and learned Lord has been kind enough to write to me, and in case I misquote his letter perhaps lie will be kind enough to explain the position.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, a certain amount of confusion arose in the discussion of this matter because my understanding was that the question that was being addressed to me was how it was possible for a Secretary of State to render enforceable that which had no statutory or other hacking. Of course he could not do so, but the answer to the dilemma is that the provisions of subsection (7) expressly enable and empower the Secretary of State to make directions.
The question which then arose, and which arises, is: how is it possible that directions can be made by letter? The direction itself is in fact a direction which is published, and if your Lordships would look at Schedule 5 paragraphs 5 and 6 at page 73,in paragraph 6 it is provided:
"The provisions of paragraph 5"—
calling for the opportunity for public inspection—
1226
"shall apply in relation to any direction given by the Secretary of State under section 16(7) of this Act"—
which is what we are discussing—
"as they apply in relation to a scheme which has been made or revised."
The authority to give the direction is to be found in Clause 16(7). It empowers the Secretary of State to direct that a scheme under the section shall not create any obligation enforceable in law. That direction has to be published in the way indicated in paragraph 5. The letter is merely a communication to the authority concerned of the content and fact of the direction, so that the direction does not depend on the letter; the letter is an event which follows the making of the direction and the publicity which attends to it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for clearing up this little muddle. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.40 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords I beg to move Amendments Nos. 81 to 89 en bloc.
Amendments moved—
Page 15, line 29, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area")
Page 15, line 36, at end insert—
(" " county area" means the area of a county authority or, in the case of Derbyshire, Greater Manchester, South Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Staffordshire or Cheshire, such part of that area as does not fall within the area of the Peak Park Planning Board")
Page 15, line 37, leave out ("or the Greater London Council") and insert ("the Greater London Council or the Peak Park Joint Planning Board")
Page 16, line 8, leave out from ("section") to end of line 11, and insert ("an authority shall he regarded as an authority in any county area if any part of their area falls within that county area")
Page 16, line 13, after second ("to") insert ("the area of")
Page 16, line 14, leave out ("the area of that authority") and insert ("that area")
Page 16, line 16, leave out ("their") and insert ("that")
Page 16, line 17, after ("to") insert ("the area of")
page 16, line 19, leave out ("the area of that authority") and insert ("that area").
6.41 p.m.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 16, line 22, after ("Wales") insert ("in Orkney, in Shetland, in the Western Isles").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 91, which is the alternative. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for a letter he wrote to me, but I am not altogether satisfied that the position is quite different in respect of the Isles of Scilly than it is particularly in the case of the Western Islands of Scotland. I do not think I am taking the noble Lord's letter out of context when I quote this part of it:
"As I indicated in Committee, the fact that an authority is a single tier authority is not necessarily the only test. The land acquisition and management scheme will inform the Secretary of State about various administrative arrangements which might go further than operations of a single authority and its own staff see, for example, Schedule 5, paragraph 3(1)(b)."
That provision reads:
"Each scheme shall contain…arrangements, where appropriate, for the use by one authority of officers or servants employed by another authority."
I argue that in Scotland the island authorities are all-purpose authorities and are on exactly the same footing as the Isles of Scilly under the English legislation. I admit that there is need for a land acquisition and management scheme in the case of Orkney and Shetland, purely and simply because of the tremendous development that is taking place in that part of the world in connection with North Sea oil. I was in that area in February of this year and the maximum number of people they have had unemployed in Shetland is about 150—and in Orkney about 175—and approximately 100 of those, without being unfair to the people concernd, are virtually unemployable. On the other hand, the Western Isle have seen very little development for a long time, partly because they are in a much more stormy part of the world and also because there is no industrial development worth speaking of going on there.
However, I argue that the Scilly Isles have a very favour able climate and that it would be a great mistake to make exceptions. I feel that there should be no difference in the provisions of this
1228
Bill in the case of the Scilly Isles or the Western Isles. Indeed, if there was a group of islands to be left out, probably it should be the Western Isles rather than the Scilly Isles. The Scillies have an ideal climate and, in my view, have every right to come within the provisions of this Bill; and I imagine that the local authorities there would be just as in favour of that as the noble Lord has said in respect of other local authorities in the United Kingdom. It would be much more sensible for my Amendment No. 91 to be agreed to, which then would leave no exception, but Wales would be on its own with its special provisions in Part II of the Bill. I should be pleased to hear other comments from noble Lords with equal experience of the subject.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, was referring to me when he sought the comments of those with equal experience of the subject, but I will do my best. These three Scottish authorities are, in terms of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, island authorities and are, for planning purposes, "general planning authorities. "They have, I acknowledge—as I acknowledged in Committee—no local authority either above or below them, but the Bill as drafted makes provision for them to make land acquisition and management schemes acting alone. This is not an inconsistency. LAMS is not merely a question of agreeing the division of functions between authorities, though as I said in Committee, this will obviously figure largely in most schemes. LAMS is also a scheme setting out important arrangements in connection with the acquisition and disposal of land. I went into this in some detail in Committee and the noble Earl referred to a specific example which I gave him in a letter I wrote to him after the Committee stage. I do not intend to go over that ground again. I listened carefully to what the noble Earl said and he did not dispute that LAMS deals with factors which arise, whether or not authorities are above or below the authority drawing up the LAMS.
There is another important factor in requiring LAMS from the islands authorities which I did not mention in Committee. This is the existence of three bodies which are uniquely Scottish—the

1229
Highlands and Islands Development Board, the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Special Housing Association—to which the noble Earl has drawn our attention on earlier occasions. Each of these bodies is empowered to carry out development either themselves or in co-operation with local authorities. For example, the Highlands and Islands Development Board is involved with hotel and advance factory development; the Scottish Development Agency has industrial and environmental functions which involve acquisition and development of land; and the Scottish Special Housing Association is involved in housing development. All these authorities will have an important and continuing role in development after the first appointed day under the Bill and it is essential that their rôle is adequately defined in a LAMS. I must repeat, therefore, that the preparation of LAMS by island authorities in Scotland, particularly as they will be involved in oil related development in the future is an essential preliminary to the operation of the Bill. The noble Earl sought, I think, to draw a distinction between the Western Isles and the other island authorities mentioned in his Amendment. My understanding is that it is possible that there will be oil-related development in the Western Isles in the future, and that this authority has already expressed a desire to move towards implementing the land scheme.
The noble Earl, Lord Balfour, attempted, as a second limb to his argument, to equate the Orkney, Shetland and Western Isles, with the Scilly Isles. I regret that that argument cannot be accepted either. They are comparable neither in population nor in size. The smallest of the Scottish authorities, Orkney, has a population over seven times as large as that of Scilly and a land area 60 times as large. Nor can one compares the current development needs and pressures in the Island authorities associated with oil and related enterprises with the essentially rural Scilly Islands. Moreover, as I have said, Scotland is unique in having three Government-sponsored agency bodies operating in development The Government cannot accept that because the Scilly Isles are excluded from LAMS because theirs is a single-tier authority, the same must automatically apply to the Scottish island
1230
authorities. I hope that this further rather lengthy explanation of the position will satisfy the noble Earl, and that he will feel able to withdraw the Amendments.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I shall be quite happy to withdraw the Amendment, but I feel that we should try to find out a little more about why the Scilly Isles are being left out. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of BALFOUR The Earl of BALFOUR moved Amendment No. 91.
Page 16, line 22, leave out from ("Wales") to end of line 23.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I believe that the Scilly Isles deserve to come into the provisions of this Bill, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, can clear my mind as to why they should definitely be excluded, if that really is the case. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have been into this in considerable detail, and I do not think there is anything more that I can add. I have attempted to show the noble Earl why it is not right that the Scottish Isles should be excluded because—and I feel that this may be a point which will carry particular weight with the noble Earl—the Government agencies in Scotland which are carrying out development do not exist in the Scilly Isles. If I may say so, it therefore seems that the arguments used by the noble Earl in an attempt to exclude the Scottish Isles might well answer his own case so far as the Scilly Isles are concerned.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, perhaps we should leave the Scilly Islands on their own, though I believe that the Government are making a mistake. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Schedule 5 [Land acquisition and management schemes]:
Lord MELCHETT: I beg to move Amendment No. 93, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 51.
Amendment moved—
Page 72, line 30, leave out lines 1–6 on the correction slip.—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I regret that we shall have to re-examine this case in a little more detail because, unfortunately, there was an inadvertent omission from the Bill as amended in Committee. Your Lordships may have been able to acquire a correction slip which makes a correction to Schedule 5, which reasserts the position as we left it on 28th October. The position then was that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, addressed himself to the Amendment and, in general terms, accepted it, except for the words to which I shall allude in a moment. We feel that there is not a great deal between the two sides of the House on this point and that it should be possible to reach some compromise. The noble Lord said the following:
"I confess that I am in some difficulty about the Amendment. My advice is that without the last two lines it would be quite acceptable to the Government and that I should offer at Report stage to bring forward an Amendment along those lines."—[Official Report, 28/10/75; col. 153.]
As your Lordships will he aware, last night, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, in a Government Amendment altered Schedule 6 and is now attempting to remove from the Bill our previous Amendment to Schedule 5, I cannot at this stage sec why it should not be highly beneficial to leave our Amendment in Schedule 5, but to alter it on Third Reading by the removal of the words which give such offence to the Government: that is, "in consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture". All the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, lead us to believe that this will be quite acceptable without those words and that if we were to resist the Amendment—and we hope your Lordships will be willing to do this later unless the Government are ready to withdraw it—it should be possible to reach the solution which I have outlined.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, I believe that he may not have had time to study what I said yesterday at column 1121, when I sought to speak to a series of three Amendments—Amendments Nos. 93, 109 and 110—with Amendment No. 51 which I had then moved. I indicated then that I was accepting the spirit in which I understood from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, those Amendments had been put forward.
1232
The noble Earl told me several times that they had been put forward in a helpful spirit. I accepted them in that spirit, and I have attempted to come back with a series of Government Amendments which cover the ground which is common to both sides of the House. Indeed, as I indicated in column 1121, our Amendments go somewhat further in a very important respect.
The Amendments moved at the Committee stage by noble Lords opposite extended only to land acquisition and management schemes, and, as I said yesterday, in our view, authorities ought to be thinking about land management not only when preparing their LAMS, but even more importantly when they are operating a scheme. It is in that respect that we have gone wider than the Amendments which were agreed, but, as the noble Lord indicated, the Government's version leaves out the business of having to consult the Ministry of Agriculture which I believe it is now accepted may well be better left out. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to accept this series of Amendments and have a look at the Schedule when it has been amended by Amendments Nos. 109 and 110. I believe he will see that I have moved them in a genuine attempt to meet the points which have been made, and, indeed, to go further than noble Lords opposite managed to go in their Amendments in an attempt to be helpful. I believe that it would be better if the Amendments were carried so that the noble Lord could have a look at the Bill once that has been done.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 94.
Amendment moved—
Page 72. line 41, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area"). —(Lord Sandford.)
6.59 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 72, line 45, leave out ("direct all the") and insert ("after consulting all the authorities direct those").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment would require the Secretary of State, before directing authorities

1233
to revise a land acquisition and management scheme to consult with those authorities. It arose because, at Committee stage, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, moved an Amendment which provided for consultation before the Secretary of State directed the revision of a LAMS. Unfortunately, the Amendment was not correctly drafted, but the Government accepted the point in principle and undertook to bring forward on Report a properly drafted Amendment; hence the present Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley may I thank the noble Baroness for these Amendments which meet the point we raised?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 97.
Amendment moved—
Page 73, line 10, leave out ("area of the county authority") and insert ("county area"). —(Lord Sandford.)
7.0 p.m.
Baroness B1RK Baroness B1RK moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 73, line 16, at end insert—
"(2) As soon as practicable after a scheme has been made or revised, the county authority shall send a copy of the scheme (or the scheme as revised) to every parish council whose area comprises any part of the area of the county authority.
(3) As respects Scotland sub-paragraph (2) above shall not apply but, in the case of a scheme made or revised for the area of a general planning authority, that authority shall send as soon as practicable a copy of the scheme (or the scheme as revised) to every district council whose district comprises any part of that area."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I ask the House to agree to a manuscript Amendment to change "area of the county authority as shown in subparagraph (2) to "county area", so that it fits in with the Peak Park Amendments.
The intention is to change the words "area of the county authority" in the last line of sub-paragraph (2) to "county area". This is to fit in with the Peak Park Amendments. I hope that this is clear. The object of Amendment 98,
1234
to which I will now speak, is to require that when a land acquisition and management scheme has been made or revised, the county authority shall send copies of the scheme to parish councils in the area, or in the case of Scotland where a scheme is made or revised by a general planning authority, that authority shall send copies of the scheme to district councils in the area.
Noble Lords may recall that at the Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, moved an Amendment which would have given parish councils the right to ask for a copy of any LAMS without payment. This resulted in drawing to our attention the point that as Schedule 8, paragraph 1(1) (b) already provides for declarations of disposal notification areas, it might well be appropriate for parish councils to receive copies of LAMS as of right. The Government agreed to consider this point before Report stage and the present Amendments are the result. The basic point is that although parish councils are not authorities for the purposes of the land scheme, they are local authorities for the purposes of the Local Government Act 1972.
Therefore we consider it is right that they should be kept informed of arrangements that will have an impact on their areas. The same argument applies in Scotland where there is a need to cover the position of district councils within the areas of general planning authorities which are also local authorities but which are not authorities for the purposes of the Bill. The sending of copies of LAMS to district councils within these areas will ensure that knowledge of the contents of LAMS is effectively disseminated throughout these areas. As the copies of LAMS will be sent to parish and district councils under a statutory duty they will of course be provided free of charge.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Baroness for moving this Amendment. Those connected with parish councils, like myself, will be more than happy about this.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I join my noble friend in that remark. I ask the noble Baroness one question. Does it

1235
apply to community councils in Wales? We assume that it does.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I gather that it does—
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it cannot, because the schemes do not apply in Wales. There are no schemes in Wales.
Baroness BIRK: I am sorry, my Lords, the noble Viscount is absolutely right. I was trying to think what would be the parallel way of doing this so that at least the local authority areas within Wales were notified That cannot be done under this Amendment, but I am quite sure that there will be a way in which we can see that the local authority areas in Wales are notified.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, a parallel action which the noble Baroness might consider would be giving the parish councils the right to have copies of the agency arrangements sent to them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 17 [General duties]:
7.7 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 16, line 28, leave out ("then").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move Amendment No. 99 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 100. We start, as I did at the Committee stage, from the Statement made by the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Minister who is responsible for local government and development that he wants to see this process of land acquisition being planning led. The object of my first Amendment at this point of the Bill at the Committee stage was to make the Bill reflect that intention. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, took his stand on the clause as previously drafted and called in aid the Royal Town Planning Institute and the Town and Country Planning Association. At that time I had not consulted those bodies, but I now have, and in the light both of that consultation and my study of what the noble Lord said in response to my original Amendment, I have refined my Amendment and propose this one which would leave out the word "then" and to re-
1236
draft what now appears in paragraph (b).
This is done with the intention of making my Amendment meet some of the points which the noble Lord said were in the mind of his right honourable friend, and I hope that the Government, while not perhaps entirely happy, will be more happy with this version than they were with the original one. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has explained, these Amendments would alter the general duty in Clause 17(1). At Committee stage the Opposition carried against the Government an Amendment to Clause 17(1) which reversed the order of the paragraphs and then made the duty of bringing development land into public ownership dependent upon the authority's implementation of its plans. As my noble friend Lord Melchett pointed out at that time, the Amendment would have the unacceptable effect of allowing authorities which did not wish to implement the land scheme to argue that public ownership of development land was not necessary to secure the proper planning of their area. This point seems now to be appreciated and this Amendment rights that point. It removes the requirement that public ownership should be consequential upon achieving good planning, and it leaves things in the right perspective.
In view of this I can say that we are prepared to accept the Amendment as we feel it is some improvement on the one moved before. Nevertheless, I must point out that such acceptance is again without prejudice to any conclusions that the Government may reach on the acceptability of the whole of the main issue.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am delighted that all this striving has brought our minds closer together, at any rate on this point.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords. I beg to move Amendment No. 100.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, leave out lines 29 to 32 and insert—
"(b) of bringing development land into public ownership and of developing that land

1237
themselves or of making it available for development by others in accordance with such planning."—(Lord Sandford.)
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 102 with Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 5, leave out ("within whose area the land is situated") and insert ("whose area includes the land").—(Lord Melchett.)
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Amherst of Hackney): My Lords, I should tell the House that if Amendment No. 103 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 104.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment No. 103 on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, leave out lines 6 to 9.—(Lord Melchett.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 17, line 11, at end insert:
(" (5A) In exercising their duties under this Act. and in particular their duty to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry, every authority shall aim to protect productive agricultural and forestry land from encroachment by relevant development, and in this context shall have had prior regard to the use for relevant development of waste or uncultivated land.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is another version of an Amendment which we moved at Committee stage. We have studied with great care the reply given at that stage by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and our drafting follows upon what we believe to be the many points where we agreed with the Government and they agreed with us. If I may draw your Lordships' attention to col. 194 of the Official Report of 28th October, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said:
"As I understand it, the only possible point at which the two sides might diverge is in the proposals of the Government for giving a slightly higher rate of grant to authorities than is at present the case. But I think on the whole there is the concensus approach that the authorities are doing as much as they can,
1238
and the fact is that a great deal of derelict land is simply not suitable for development",
et cetera.
My Lords, this relates to the principle of derelict land, which we have varied in our Amendment because the basis of it now is related to the needs of agriculture and forestry. Our Amendment provides that:
… "every authority shall aim to protect productive agricultural and forestry land from encroachment…".
On this point there is no divergence between the two sides of the House, but your Lordships will be aware that in the final line of the Amendment the words "waste or uncultivated land" are used instead of "derelict land". Waste land, as your Lordships are aware, includes a very large area of the United Kingdom. It includes foreshore, estuarial acres which are partly covered at high tide, areas of land which are uncultivated and areas of land which are in process either of being reclaimed from the sea or of being covered. My Lords, there is no doubt about it; the casting of this Amendment in these varied terms is a new method which we believe may help the Government to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in moving this Amendment, which has been carefully worded in order to meet two of the objections raised by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, both of which we felt were valid; that is, the matter of consultation and the reference to the economic interests of rural or urban areas. I fear that we do not agree with his other two reasons for opposing our Amendments in Committee: first, that the planning system in itself contains significant safeguards for agriculture—I only wish that were true—and, secondly, the opinion he expressed that the pace of acquisition of agricultural land would not increase once local authorities began to acquire land under this Bill. That, we think, was highly speculative and probably too optimistic; and, in any event, no good reason for not showing a warning light to local authorities to guard against unnecessary land-take and to remember to preserve the country's capacity to produce food. I very much hope that the Government will now find this Amendment satisfactory. It in no way undermines any of

1239
the basic principles behind the Bill. It can do no harm, it may do good, and it ought to be accepted.
The Earl of BALFOUR: My Lords, I wonder whether I could add a few more words to this point. I did not move Amendment No. 101 because I felt that Amendment No. 105 covered the point to a very much greater extent, but if for some reason the Government are not prepared to accept Amendment No. 105 perhaps they will consider again Amendment No. 101. However, I rise to support Amendment No. 105, standing in the names of my noble friends, for several reasons. Some of the biggest developments that have gone on—for example, if I can again quote Scotland. the enormous oil works at Grangemouth which are now hitting the headlines of almost every paper—were built on reclaimed land. On many occasions the local authority has taken the very best agricultural land for the purposes of, say, housing because it saved them the cost of underbuilding. I particularly ask the Government to revise their procedures where local authority development takes place in order to allow for a greater amount of cost to be borne by them in cases of local authority development where underbuilding is involved. The cost of underbuilding, for those of your Lordships who may not be familiar with this, arises where a house is on a slight slope and is the cost of whatever building is required below ground-level to make the building upright.
My Lords, there are many other cases where, because of the nature of the ground—there may be mine-workings underneath, for example—rafting of a building may be needed. But I must point out—and I think it is an important factor —that probably means that for every quarter of an acre of good agricultural land which is taken we have to spend £50 a year on importing the food which would have been grown on that quarter acre. Two tons to the acre of, say, wheat is not uncommon, and with prices as they are at the moment I should think that the hard wheat price for grain on the London market will be round about £80 a ton. That gives your Lordships some idea of what is involved when it comes to these very large amounts that are being lost because of the development of good agricultural land and the reduction
1240
in our food output. It is for these reasons as much as for any other that I sincerely hope that the Government are prepared to accept this very well-drafted Amendment standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Ferrers, Lord Middleton and Lord Sandys.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, there is often a risk, at this stage in the consideration of a very long Bill, of certain matters not having the priorities given to them that they ought. This is a most important Amendment; and the words have been clearly and carefully considered, there has been no precipitate feeling about it, and I hope that there will be given to it the importance that the need for our food production and the preservation of agricultural land clearly deserve. One hopes that this is a case where we are to have an acceptance by the Government; but without those words which they have put at the end of the other two acceptances—words like "subject to not being reversed when the Government have had second thoughts". This is a decision that ought to be made now and stuck to.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, it would be surprising if I were not to say a few words on this subject. I understand completely the motives behind the Amendment. One sees agricultural land being swallowed up almost weekly by the development of building sites and in order to make new roads. This is saddening to an agriculturalist. It is true that our land is precious to us. We cannot feed half our population and we must import what we do not produce; that is a consideration which everyone ought to bear in mind. However, sadly, one recognises that with the development of our towns the housing needs of our people must be taken into account and I, for one, regretfully must accept that sometimes even good agricultural land must be taken over. I hope that the planning authorities, and certainly any guidance given to them, will underline the strong desirability of land being sought which is not of first agricultural quality. Wherever one can find unproductive land not suitable for agriculture, that should be used.
My Lords, I shall not vote for the Amendment; I think it too tight. As I have said, there are considerations which, again regretfully, must sometimes outweigh the local needs of agriculture. I

1241
am going to listen with interest to what will be said by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and express the hope that he will understand and accept the need for guidance on the lines I have suggested to be given to local authorities and to anyone else connected with the development of land.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I think my noble friend has it exactly right when he says that the important thing is for the planning authorities to consider this. That is exactly the point of view that I take, and I will try to indicate to noble Lords why this Amendment will weaken the protection given to agricultural land under the planning system rather than give it extra protection. I do not want again to go over the common ground between us on this. I accept, as do the Government, the need to increase food production in this country. We accept the undesirability of agricultural land being developed unless absolutely necessary. That is common ground and ground that we covered at some length in Committee; as, too, we have considered basic issues concerning the protection of agricultural land.
In replying to the debate at the Committee stage, I entirely accepted the spirit behind the Amendments that noble Lords opposite then moved, but I questioned the necessity and the way in which they tackled the problems. I raised two main issues on the latter point. First, I stressed that any attempt to use the land scheme to set up a duplicate planning system would wreck the planning system and remove the real protection from agricultural land. Secondly, I drew attention to specific defects in the Amendments, particularly in respect of any requirement for consultation with the Ministry of Agriculture.
I am naturally delighted that noble Lords opposite have taken some of these points to heart; and to that extent this Amendment is an improvement. I think there is now the question of whether it adds anything of value to the Bill. After all, paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 requires authorities in exercising their functions generally to have regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry. Another objection which I raised at Committee was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. This was whether this Bill will affect the rate at which agricultural
1242
and is brought into development. I went so far, the last time we debated this, as to suggest that it might have the opposite effect; but as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, said, this is a hypothetical point and I would not rest my argument against the Amendment on that.
Even if the Amendment does add anything to the Bill, the root trouble of the setting up of a duplicate planning system remains. The Amendment would require authorities at the acquisition stage to consider the planning issues of whether it is right to use a piece of agricultural land for a particular development, or whether the development could be carried out on some other nonagricultural land. This is certainly something that can and must be considered, but it must be done at the planning stage. The Amendment could have an effect precisely contrary to that which it seeks to achieve. The proper way to protect agriculture is through the operation of the planning system which contains the real safeguards. Anything that weakens the planning system must weaken the protection. The present Bill has been unjustly accused of being contrary to good planning. It is not. It goes hand in hand with planning, as Clause 17(2) makes clear. The Amendment would have precisely the effect of turning the land scheme procedures into a second and independent planning system. That is something which we have sought to resist all along.
My Lords, we have said—and it is flattering to someone as young as me to see that professors at one's old University read what one says on these subjects and that was the case when I ventured to make the remark about this Bill not dealing with planning per se—that the important point is that the Bill does not attempt to interfere with the present planning system; it attempts to build on it by giving local authorities powers to acquire development land. If it becomes general practice that every planning decision relating to agricultural land has to be questioned at the acquisition stage, who will be interested in reaching proper decisions at the planning stage? I venture to suggest that it will detract seriously from the importance of decisions reached at the planning stage, and it is at that stage that the real protection of agricultural land lies.

1243
The inevitable result of this Amendment would be the discrediting of the existing planning system, and that is something that I hope that noble Lords on all sides would strongly resist.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I introduced this Amendment in a frame of mind that I think your Lordships will agree was both conciliatory and helpful. I still believe that there is a large area of agreement between both sides on this; but when I listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, I was truly astounded. He gave away the keys of the castle in the first five minutes. Nobody connected with agriculture in a country such as Holland would have dreamed of making that remark; because the very important level at which the Dutch rate their agricultural land would have precluded that altogether. I think it harmful for one so closely connected with the agricultural industry to have said what he said this evening: that it does not really matter so far as agriculture is concerned; housing needs must come first.
We do not dispute that housing needs are exceedingly important, but we believe that Clause 17 as set out, can be improved. We do not disapprove of what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said in regard to proper planning. Here we have it in Clause 17(a) which says:
"In exercising their functions .… every authority shall have regard to the desirability of securing the proper planning".
We believe that by the addition of this Amendment it would have a desirable effect.
We are prepared to bend over backwards in order to achieve satisfaction in this clause which we believe to be as important as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has stated. I was glad to have the support in this matter from my noble friend Lord Middleton. He rates it, as all of us do on this side of the House, as of the first importance. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, referred to a double planning system. He made a lot of that. We do not see this in that light altogether; we believe it may be possible to reach an accommodation with the Government and therefore we are prepared at this stage to withdraw the Amendment on the assumption that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may be pre-
1244
pared to join in discussions prior to a further Amendment being set down at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 17, line 13, at end insert ("functions concerning the acquisition, management or disposal of land").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Amendment No. 106, I will also speak to Amendments Nos. 107 and 108. These Amendments limit the functions under other Acts to which the general duty would apply to functions concerning the acquisition, management and disposal of land. These Amendments are designed to meet the valuable point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, at Committee stage. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor made clear at that time, the new duty placed upon authorities under Clause 17(1) to have regard to the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership must apply to all powers of authorities to acquire, manage and dispose of land for private development, and not only to those under this Bill. It would be nonsense, if it did not extend also to, for instance, the powers of local authorities under Section 112 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, entirely accepted this point, and thus that the provisions of Clause 17(6) were necessary. But his anxiety was that Clause 17(6)(a) could be interpreted as going further, and as meaning that the general duty might effect the way in which local authorities exercise their general planning functions under the 1971 Act (for example, in considering planning applications). This was certainly never the Government's intention. So to make this absolutely clear. the Amendments limit the functions under other Acts to which the general duty applies to those functions concerning the acquisition, management and disposal of land. I think this should now meet the point of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and also improve the clarity of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Government for

1245
having looked at this point and I am also most grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having written to me about it. In so far as I understand the Amendments—they are very difficult to understand and are on a particularly difficult clause of the Bill—the implications of the amending words seem to go some way to meet my fears that planing decisions would be distorted by having to take account of considerations of a non-planning kind; that is, land acquisition. The Amendments go a long way to meet the point I made, not the whole way because there is a conflict between planning and land acquisition which is built into the Bill; that is part of the Bill, and I accept that though I do not care for it. The Government have gone as far as they can reasonably go without upsetting the philosophy of their Bill. I am most grateful for it and, if I understand it correctly, it meets the central point I made. I am sure that this will be in the interests of good planning.
7.35 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 107.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 16, leave out ("functions").— (Baroness Birk.)
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 108.
Amendment moved—
Page 17, line 18, leave out ("functions").—(Baroness Birk.)
Schedule 6 [General duties of authorities]:
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 en bloc. I spoke to these Amendments with Amendment No. 51.
Amendments moved—
Page 73, line 24, after ("deciding") insert ("(a)")
Page 73, line 26, after ("others") insert ("or
(b) what use should be made of such land until it is so developed or made so available").—(Lord Melchett.)
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 73, line 33, leave out ("local") and insert ("other authorities, local and new town").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment corrects an oversight. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 already requires authorities, in exercising their functions, to have regard to the needs of local authorities. This was added to the Bill at the Commons Report stage. However, in drafting the Amendment we overlooked the need to cover the interests under the Bill of other authorities which are not local authorities. This Amendment corrects that error. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 73, line 34. at end insert:
("(dd) the needs and obligations of charities").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Amendment provides that in exercising their functions on or after the first appointed day, and in particular in deciding whether development land acquired by them should be developed by them or made available for development by others, authorities shall have regard to the needs and obligations of charities in addition to those of the other interests that appear in paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule. The Amendment has been tabled in consequence of the undertaking given to the noble Earl, Lord Balfour, in Committee stage to incorporate the spirit of his Amendment, which sought to include in the Schedule,
"the needs for ecclesiastical buildings and dwelling houses for ministers of religion ".
In debate on the Amendment my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that the Government recognised the anxiety of the Churches that they should be able to obtain without difficulty the new land which they will require for development in order to carry out their own functions, and the Government therefore accepted the intention behind the Amendment. They were concerned however to follow the principle of making any special provision for Churches apply equally to all other charities, and this will accordingly be achieved through the inclution of this new sub-paragraph in Schedule 6. I beg to move.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think my noble friend Lord Balfour is in his place. Had he been in his place, I am sure he would have wanted to thank the noble Baroness; and, as a minister of religion myself, I should like to thank her, too.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 73, line 41, at end insert—
("( ) Section 192(1) of the Act of 1971 and section 181 of the Scottish Act of 1972 (blight notices) shall have effect as if the land specified therein included land referred to in a programme published under this paragraph.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we return now to the rolling programmes. Whether they end up by appearing in the Bill or merely remain the administrative convenience the Government would prefer, does not make any difference to their practical effect. It is with their practical effect that this Amendment is concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will remember that at Committee stage he told us there were three functions for these rolling programmes: first, to provide orderly plans; secondly, to provide a basis for economic control and borrowing and, lastly, to inform local people and builders of the scope of the authority's planned activity. I have little doubt that this will be so, whether or not they are in the Bill.
One of the results of telling local people and builders about land to be included in the rolling programme is to make it impossible to sell land to anybody but the local authority. If you have land which is identifiable under one of the rolling programmes it will be instantly affected by blight, because nobody will be interested in buying, say, a farm which is within a five-year rolling programme for acquisition by a local authority; and the same would apply to any other property if the owner wished to move away, or, in the case of death of the owner, the executors wished to dispose of the property. These properties will have no market value in any practical terms, except to the local authority.
I appreciate that there may be difficulties in working out how this is to be attached to the scheme of blight notices; more particularly, perhaps, if the provision for rolling programmes does not appear in the Bill. This Amendment is
1248
drafted, of course, on the basis that there is a reference in the Bill to rolling programmes. On the other hand, it may be that the Government wish to try to persuade another place to reverse that. I know not, but I believe that we ought to provide for this.
In suport of not putting rolling programmes into the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, drew analogies from other activities of local government. I do not find education very easy to deal with as I do not have much experience of it, but when it comes to highways, which was the other sort of rolling programme to which he referred to, we have massive provisions in the blight notice procedure in Section 192 of the English Act, whereby people whose land is affected by proposed roads can, if they wish, and if they cannot sell it to anybody else, sell it to the local authority and require the local authority to buy it. I would remind the noble Lord that it is not only a matter of finding the land in a development plan as being a piece of land on which a road is to go. All you need under 192(I)(e) is a plan approved by a resolution of the local highway authority. The moment that happens, the blight notice procedure becomes applicable.
I should like the noble Lord to consider very seriously whether we ought, either through this Amendment or something similar if we are not to have rolling programmes in the Bill, to attract this procedure to the situation of a person whose land is identifiable in the rolling programme. I am not sure what the rolling programme will look like, but it will have to be fairly specific if it is to be of use to local people and builders, and we shall have the situation where land can be easily identifiable and, therefore, blighted.
The Government have been very helpful regarding blight over this Bill. We have one provision already in the Bill for disposal notification areas and there is another one, which was pointed out to me, which is that if part of the land was the subject of a compulsory purchase order and the other part was postponed. Nevertheless, on the postponed part of the land the blight notice procedure would apply. Here is another case where the Government are going to deal fairly with people whose land will be required for Community Land Bill purposes, and I think

1249
they will have to take account of the hardship which will occur when people's land is identifiable under a rolling programme. I am sure that as they have been scrupulously careful in trying to look after such people in other respects, they will wish to do so in this case also. I beg to move.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am afraid we think that the Amendment is unnecessary and is based on a misunderstanding of rolling programmes. I do not think that what I said at Committee stage led to misunderstanding because, as the noble Viscount said, I spoke of the scope of activity and said that the rolling programme would give local people and builders some idea of the likely scope of activity. That would not necessarily— and indeed will not—amount to mentioning particular sites.
The scope of rolling programmes was clearly set out in the Department's paper, the Planning Framework for Land Acquisition, of which copies are available in the Printed Paper Office for those who would wish to see it. Of the rolling programmes this document said:
"Though authorities will be considering the needs of private development up to ten years ahead they will not need to acquire ten years' supply of land. They will have to prepare five-year rolling programmes of their anticipated expenditure on development land and these will be approved annually by the Department of the Environment as a basis for borrowing approval. They will not contain lists of sites to be acquired but will need to be appropriately supported in relation to the planning basis on which the authorities concerned are operating."
So we have made it clear from the outset that rolling programmes will not specify individual sites, and there is nothing in the Amendment that was pressed by noble Lords opposite at Committee stage, as I understand it, which would in any way alter that position.
Since rolling programmes are programmes of expenditure and will make no reference to individual sites, they will not cause blight. Indeed, far from its being unnecessary for rolling programmes to contain details of individual sites, there are strong objections to their doing so. As this Amendment recognises, the end result could only be to create vast areas of unnecessary blight. That would, of course, be bad for landowners in the area and the application of statutory blight
1250
provisions would place a heavy and unnecessary burden on authorities who would be forced to acquire the land far in advance of need. This, I am sure, is something which both sides of your Lordships' House would wish to avoid.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to say a word or two in support of my noble friend. I can see from the notes which were supplied to us that it is not the Government's intention that the rolling programme should refer to individual sites. But, equally, it would be possible to say they were proposing to acquire, say, 300 acres of land in the next two years. But you cannot support that with relevant planning factors, which is one of the intentions of the Government, without specifying to some degree where the land will be. It could be put in terms such as, "To the North-West of the town as far as the River So-and-So". It seems to me that you cannot avoid describing the acquisition programme in terms less precise than that. That is roughly the equivalent of some of the proposals to be shown in the structure plan, and that plan is one of the factors which in appropriate cases would qualify people to serve blight notices. That is mentioned in Section 192.
It may not be possible for all the people who are to be affected by the acquisition programme to show that they are qualified to serve blight notices, but I should have thought there would be certain people who, if terms such as I have employed were used, could say without any doubt at all that their property would be affected by next year's tranche of acquisition in the rolling programme. Somehow or other, we must ensure that those situations are covered. It is really most unconvincing to say that people who happen to be embraced in a disposal notification area—which is a wide area established by the authority in order that they should receive information about transactions in the area—qualify for blight, but as regards an acquisition programme, the land that will be acquired in the very next year does not bring them into the scope of the blight provisions.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may with the leave of the House briefly respond, I should first say something about roads, a point the noble Viscount raised. I did not cover them in my reply.

1251
As I understand it, roads are covered for blight purposes because they are approved, as he said, by resolution of the highway authority and not because they are included in the rolling programme, the TPP. So I do not think that is a strict analogy with the attempt to make something which is included in this rolling programme qualify people for blight. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked me about the planning background and said that surely it will be possible to identify sites.
Lord SANDFORD: No, my Lords. May I interrupt? I said that it will be possible to say that certain sites, and a lot of sites, will undoubtedly be embraced within the general area referred to.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, even if the noble Lord puts it like that I am not sure that I agree with him. As I understand it, the planning background at this stage of the rolling programme will need to be in only broad terms to indicate that the authorities' proposed areas of operation are consistent with the planning background for those areas. Only at the acquisition stage will the question of individual sites and their planning background arise. I accept that there will be fringe cases, just as I suppose there are at the moment when blight provisions occur. And I would expect that, just as at the moment, local authorities will take a sympathetic view if those arose. But I do not think the Amendment is acceptable. I think it is based on a misconception, which may have arisen because of something I said at Committee stage about exactly how detailed these rolling programmes will be.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord in his last remarks perhaps gave me a little courage to press him slightly further even if he cannot deal with the matter in a speech tonight. Let me give him two examples because I think the position is so much more easily understood if one has examples. There are by this time in many towns fairly limited choices as to the direction in which further development can go. I was recently involved in a particular town where the critical factor for the moment is the provision of a bypass. It is perfectly well known that certain sites are available for housing and
1252
would be approved. although they are not in the development plan because it is so hideously out of date. There are certain other sites which would be approved but cannot be approved until the by-pass comes—and the by-pass is now many years away because of the economic situation.
In that town, if the local authority said: "We are going to provide for £X million in our land acquisition programme for the next five years for housing purposes," it is undoubtedly correct that the sites would be identified. There are no other sites. They have been on a non-statutory map for years and years and everybody knows about them. If the local authority says it is going to acquire land, those will be the sites and everybody knows it. If development goes on to any other land it will be in breach of all the things that have been done in resisting. planning applications on that other land, again for years and years. That is one case, and there cannot be any doubt that in a case like that it would be so easy to identify the land.
Let me give the noble Lord another example which also is based on fact. I know a town where there are very firm proposals to expand the central shopping area. For a number of reasons it is a very difficult town. There has recently been consideration of this in the structure plan local hearings, and the structure plan has now been approved. It has been approved so as to identify the area upon which the central area shopping redevelopment will occur, when it does occur. All that has to happen is for the local authority there to say in their rolling programme, and to publish it: "We are going to to go ahead with central area shopping redevelopment." There cannot be any doubt about where it is to be. It is on the structure plan. It is clearly identified. There is no possible doubt on grounds as to the exact boundaries of it, and in those circumstances nobody is going to have one moment of doubt as to where the site will be. Those are two real examples. If the noble Lord would like to hear them, I will tell him the names of the two towns concerned, but I do not think it matters.
The noble Lord says: "In those circumstances it may be only a fringe matter." It will not, because once it is

1253
identified that the local authority will act under the Bill in those two areas—I have only to mention the word, "housing" in one and, "shopping" in the other and the site is identified automatically by the local circumstances—there will be no market for that land and there is nothing anybody can do about it. It will be blighted, whether or not the noble Lord likes it. Will the noble Lord do this? Will he go further than to say that he thinks that local authorities will be sympathetic? Will he issue a circular to them, or will he see whether the Department is prepared to issue a circular to them, giving them very strong directions that, where on account of local circumstances sites are identifiable in this way, they are to buy if there is any question of the land being blighted? Otherwise, people are going to be left in an impossible position under this Bill and one from which they will not be able to escape without substantial hardship. Land will be sterilised, and people will be out of pocket, and there will be a great outcry.
I hope the noble Lord accepts that as being a valid approach with valid examples and representing a valid problem, and I hope that he will think about it. I do not know whether he wants to say anything more this evening. It may well be that he would prefer to go away and think about it. If he will guarantee that he will think about it—and I see that he is nodding his head—and will guarantee to see whether something practical can be done, I will at any rate this evening beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be adjourned until tomorrow.

CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
7.57 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now further considered. Your Lordships will remember that consideration was adjourned after Amendment No. 103.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be further considered.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
[References are to Bill (140) as first printed for the Commons]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 104 to 114.]
Clause 41, page 25, line 28, at end insert ("enactment or rule of law conferring a—").
Page 26, line 11, after ("cause") insert (",having regard to section 1 of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925 (the principle on which questions relating to custody, upbringing etc. of children are to be decided)").
Clause 42, page 26, line 35, leave out ("applying for") and insert ("making an application relating to the").
Clause 42, page 26, line 41, leave out ("may be revoked") and insert ("discharged").
Page 27, line 3, leave out ("any application, other than one") and insert ("an application relating to the custody of a child, other than an application").
Page 27, line 5, leave out ("for custody of a child").
Clause 45, page 28, line 5, at end insert—
("(1A) In any case where subsection (1) applies, and

(a) the child was in the care of a local authority before he began to have his home with the applicant, and

(b) the child remains in the care of a local authority,

the authority in whose care the child is shall not remove the child from the applicant's custody except—

(i) with the applicant's consent;

(ii) with the leave of a court; or

(iii) with the authority, in terms of Part III of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, of a justice of the peace or a children's hearing").

Clause 45, page 28, line 6, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (1)").
Clause 45, page 28, line 9, leave out ("£100 ") and insert ("£400").
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause:
Return of child taken away in breach of section 45
.—A court in which an application for custody of a child is pending may—

(a) on the application of a person from whose custody the child has been removed in breach of section 45, order the person who has so removed the child to return the child to the applicant;

(b) on the application of a person who has reasonable grounds for believing that another person is intending to remove the child from the applicant's custody in breach of section

1255
45, by order direct that other person not to remove the child from the applicant's custody in breach of that section.

Clause 46, page 28, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("direct") in line 21 and insert "applicant is a person qualified to apply for custody of the child, and the court is of opinion—

(a) in the case of an applicant who is a relative of the child or a husband or wife of the mother or father of the child (whether applying alone or jointly with his or her spouse)—

(i) that the child's welfare would not be better safeguarded and promoted by the making of an adoption order in favour of the applicant than it would be by the making of a custody order in his favour; and

(ii) that it would be appropriate to make a custody order in favour of the applicant; or

(b) in any other case, that the making of a custody order in favour of the applicant would be more appropriate than the making of an adoption order in his favour, the court shall").

Clause 46, page 28, line 22, leave out ("in such a case") and insert ("where such a direction is made").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as your Lordships will recall, the House has completed its consideration of the Amendments made in another place to the provisions of Part II of the Bill dealing with custodianship in England and Wales. With leave, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 104 to 114 which relate to custody in Scotland. At this point I should perhaps apologise on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kirkhill for his being unable to be with us today. May I also apologise because my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, whose expertise in this matter is well known, is unable to be present due to his duties abroad—which leaves me carrying the baby, which I suppose is the object of this Bill.
Before referring to Amendments Nos. 104 to 114 in more detail, I should explain that all these Amendments are of a relatively minor nature. They serve simply to clarify the existing provisions, to extend certain ancillary powers of the Scottish courts in custody proceedings, and to effect improvements which are in line with what your Lordships have already agreed in relation to Clauses 30 to 40 on custodianship.
Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 are designed in their separate ways to make clear how the Scottish custody provisions in this Bill relate to the existing law on
1256
custody in Scotland. They make it clear that the new statutory rights of application by relatives, step-parents and foster parents, contained in Clause 41, are entirely without prejudice to existing rights of application under Scots law. They also make it clear that the essential discretions of the Scottish courts, which they exercise on the basis of the welfare of the child, are preserved. Certain doubts have been expressed on these points in another place. The Amendments to which I have referred were designed to clarify the situation. They have been welcomed by those in another place who had previously expressed reservations about the provisions.
Amendments Nos. 106 to 109 extend the ancillary provisions of Clause 42 to apply these provisions not only to the making or determination of initial custody applications but also in relation to any subsequent proceedings involving custody of the child—for example, applications for variation or discharge of the custody order, or for access or maintenance.
Amendments Nos. 110 to 114 are Scottish equivalents to Amendments for England and Wales which have already been agreed by your Lordships. Amendment No. 110 restricts the removal of a child by a local authority from the care of an applicant who has had possession of the child for three years or more. Amendment No. 112A provides that where such a child is removed illegally the person from whose custody the child is removed may apply to the court for an order requiring the return of the child. Amendment No. 112 is a penalty Amendment. Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 require that the court shall not make an adoption order in the case of an application by a relative or step-parent unless it is positively satisfied that adoption is the better course in the particular case. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amend. ments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord, although he speaks so fast that it is very difficult to follow him. There are many Amendments and they have been introduced, as my noble friend said on Thursday

1257
night when unfortunately I was unable to be present, very much at the last moment. Nevertheless, I have studied the matter very carefully and realise that these Amendments are designed to clarify the situation and to bring the Bill into line with Scottish law.
I have very little to say, but I want to be quite sure that when there is any question of a custody order the interests of the child are put first. When a parent, guardian or relation is involved with the child the same safeguards should remain and the child's interests should always come first. Amendment No. 112A deals with the return of the child who is taken away in breach of Section 45. I take it that in this Amendment the interests of the child come first and foremost and that it was something which fitted into the concept of the Bill when it left your Lordships' House to go to another place. So far as Amendment No. 113 is concerned. I take it that it is for the court to decide that the child's welfare would not be better safeguarded and promoted by the making of an adoption order. Is that the duty of the court or of the applicant? I imagine that it is the duty of the court. So far as I can see from my study of these Amendments in relation to the Bill as it affects Scotland, they are simple and straightforward, but I should like to have the assurance of the noble Lord. Lord Winterbottom, that there is nothing in them which alters in any way the purpose of the Bill that the interests of the child should be paramount.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I accept the reproof of the noble Baroness and will try to speak more slowly. The problem is that I am just coming out of my corner and as a result the adrenalin is flowing rather freely! I hone that the noble Baroness will tell me if I continue to speak too fast. Amendment No. 105 was designed to clarify the situation which the noble Baroness has mentioned. In all cases the interests of the child are the first consideration. It is the duty of the court to consider what is best for the welfare of the child. These two points are firmly established and are part of the guiding principles of this Bill. I hope that this explanation will satisfy the noble Baroness.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 115 and 116]
Clause 49, page 29, line 32, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
Clause 49, page 30, line 1, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
8.14 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 115 and 116. With the permission of the House I will take these Amendments with Amendments Nos. 145 and 146. They relate to the notice of intention to remove the child. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for keeping close to my brief since I have come into this Bill rather late in the day. This is an important part of our discussion tonight.
When the Bill left your Lordships' House, this clause contained a provision which would have required the parent of a child who had been in the care of a local authority throughout the preceding 12 months to give not less than 28 days notice of intention to remove the child from care. The local authority would have had power to consent to the removal of the child from care either without notice or at any time during the period of 28 days if they thought fit.
The contentious aspects of the clause are first the period which should elapse after a child has been in care before the requirement to give notice of removal takes effect, and secondly the amount of notice that should be required. During consideration of the Bill in the other place the requirement to give 28 days' notice of removal after the child had been 12 months in care was changed so as to require the same period of notice after only six months in care. In explaining the reasons for this change my honourable friend the Minister of State in the other place said:
"It seems clear that we cannot meet the wishes of all who have expressed a view on this contentious issue and therefore in a spirit of compromise I have tabled this amendment which goes part of the way towards meeting the differing views expressed. The original proposals in the Bill have been changed from 12 to six months."
Noble Lords who have more experience of this Bill will remember that a very large spectrum of differing advice was given to the Minister of State on this

1259
matter. The Amendment in question would enable the Secretary of State by order, subject to approval by each House, to vary the periods of 28 days and six months should these prove in practice not to be the most suitable. If the noble Baroness will allow me, Amendments Nos. 145 and 146 introduce comparable provisions for Scotland. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I should first declare an interest, as I did before. I have two foster children. However, neither of them comes within this clause. Therefore, I do not feel that I am speaking with too much of an interest. I can be impartial. May I make one or two points. First, after the Committee stage in the House of Commons a Consultative Document was circulated. However, it was not circulated to the Foster Care Association and I should like that to go on the record. It is rather sad that this was not done.
The fact that we now have a hurdle of 28 days before a child can be taken back by a natural parent is a great advantage in the period of six months, and I am glad that it has been reduced from 12 to six months. However, children in the period before six months can be taken out and it is most disturbing if they can be taken out with virtually no notice. I think this is a pity because, without sounding trite, we are saying that a child's time span is different from that of an adult. Perhaps it is the same for politicians as for children, because Mr. Wilson once said that a week is a long time in the life of a politician. The same applies to a child, although rather more so.
I do not intend to take up your Lordships' time or in any way to jeopardise the Bill at this point, but I feel that we should ask the Minister, on the record, to examine the working of this. I agree that there are powers within the Bill for this to be changed at a later date, and I hope that at the earliest possible date greater protection can be given to children who have been taken into care for less than six months. They should have
1260
at least 48 hours' notice and not be taken away in the middle of the night, or in some other way.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I must declare an interest, not being a foster parent but a foster grandparent. I think my involvement is as remote as his own in this case. Like the noble Lord, I am a little worried about the period defined in the Amendment which has come from the other place. I preferred the Amendments that were carried during the Committee stage in that place, but like the noble Lord the last thing I want to do is in any way to impede the passage of this Bill. It is an excellent Bill and I think my noble friend deserves to be congratulated upon it. It is widely welcomed by foster parents and by the National Foster Care Association, but I should be glad if my noble friend could give the assurance that if in the light of experience it seems that the composite Amendment put forward by my noble friend is not the right solution to the problem, the Minister will issue an order as provided for in this clause.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord,Lord Winterbottom, coming nobly from his corner has explained to us the essentials of these Amendments and their origins by saying that they relate to the period after which it is necessary for a natural parent to give notice before he takes the child out of voluntary care; and they are relevant also to the length of notice which must then be given. The noble Lord will be as aware as I am of the very chequered history in another place of these provisions and of the elaborate Amendments which were tabled —and in fact at one stage carried—and withdrawn, and like me he will have been gratified to notice that the boundary division between those on one side and those on the other was not in any way coincidental with Party convictions. That is true of the whole Bill, and I am sure it is something which we all savour greatly in this place and applaud in the other place.
Turning to this particular problem, there are great reservations held by people intimately concerned with this problem about the propriety of allowing a natural

1261
parent after, say, five months, to tap on the door of a house and remove a child without further ado. This is something which unfortunately does happen. It has happened recently in South Wales and it has happened more recently in Nottingham. And the noble Lord will doubtless be familiar with both occasions.
In reviewing this, it occurs to me that we look at the two elements the—six months, which may well be too long, and the 28 days which may also be too long. In the first six months, I well understand the anxiety of the Social Services not to do anything to prevent the hesitant natural parent from removing a natural child from an intolerable or dangerous situation into the security of care. There are arguments which say that if an elaborate process of recovery is required this will be enough to send the parent home with the child, but I suggest that it is necessary to look closely at the possibility of having a 24-hour, or preferably a 48-hour, period of notice, mandatory unless waived by the local authority, upon the natural parent. I think the 48-hour period is more satisfactory than the 24-hour period because of the difficulty of taking any administrative steps on Sunday or a bank holiday.
From the foster parent's point of view, it is not much to expect some protection from the feeling that every step on the front path, every knock on the back door, may be somebody coming to take the child away. It is not much on the part of the child, once it is of an age to understand the circumstances in which it is put, perhaps dimly and perhaps with great apprehension, to expect at least a day and a night of reflection in which to be warned of a change of circumstances about to happen, which to us may seem simply like moving from 48 Cedars Avenue to 53 Railway Terrace but in fact for a child of tender years is the transfer from one galactic constellation to another.
Your Lordships will understand that I am anxious to put firmly and clearly on the Record the concern which is felt, not merely by myself and my noble friends on these Benches but also by associations outside this House, not least the National Foster Care Association, and others whose views on this I think are not nearly so hostile or trenchant as perhaps the noble Lord has been led to suppose in
1262
the light of conversations which I have recently had with him.
I am also under constraint not to impede the passage of an excellent piece of legislation and not to place a further strain upon the machinery which has produced and is perfecting it. In doing that, I am encouraged by seeing that under subsection (3) (b) the Secretary of State, without Amendment, has the power to alter the extent of the six months and the extent of the 28 days' notice. But be it noticed that he can only produce one period of notice at one extent of time in care. He is not able to introduce a step; under the regulations as he is empowered to make them under Clause 49(3)(b)—as at present numbered—he cannot say, "Let there be 48 hours' notice required, though waivable, in the first six months, or perhaps three months, and thereafter 28 days, or perhaps 14 days". This is a power which I think in the light of experience he may wish to be able to take to himself later on.
I am encouraged not to press the noble Lord beyond the confines of the Lobbies by the notable improvement in the Bill in the new clause which allows a report and review after three years of operation. It is my purpose, speaking at inordinate length, as at this stage of the Bill we can speak only once and therefore I must make the most of my opportunity, indelibly to impress upon the noble Lord and his Ministerial and other advisers the necessity for seeing how this provision works in practice and accepting the necessity for taking new powers in three years' time if it should be apparent that it is necessary. This would not be a victory for one Party or a defeat for the other; it would be a recognition of realities and indeed it is possible, although I think unlikely, that the opinion which the noble Lord now holds will prevail, in the light of his experience, over the opinion which I now hold, although I think it unlikely.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I add a word. Having served on the Houghton Committee and having been a sponsor, with the present Minister of State, in his Private Bill, I am satisfied with this because it is really carrying out one of the Houghton recommendations. I would mention that so far as I understand it from the Registrar-General, 25·6

1263
per cent. of the children in the circumstances we are now discussing are there because of illness of parents, because of emergency, lack of housing and not for any other reason. If we change this, we might be penalising the poorer families who are in difficulties and have to take certain action. I am fortified in this by the feelings of one-parent families and others in those categories.
My Lords, I, too, was a little worried when I first saw this. I agree with my noble friend that we have a safeguard in subsection (3B) and also in (3C). Therefore, in view of the fact that this has been discussed—and I have read the whole of the debate in the other place—I hope we shall consider, particularly in regard to the figures I have now been able to give, that this probably is the best solution.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Elton, performed a very important function by stating with such clarity the feeling of what is really a very representative body of people: that to snatch children from their homes at short notice, and particularly at midnight, is unacceptable. It brings to the mind the visits of the Gestapo and the KGB too strongly to be acceptable. We cannot expect that in a very large group of people such as make up our Social Services, and who serve our Social Services mostly with distinction and dedication, that there are not some people who are insensitive or who may make misjudgments. Events like this can occur, but I think the comments of noble Lord will be noted—in fact, I know they will be—and people then will think twice before precipitating steps of this kind.
My Lords, the discussion which has led up to these Amendments has been very interesting. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, it has nothing to do with party politics, but with differing views within a dedicated profession. This particular difference of views was reflected in the passage of the Bill through another place, where I understand it was said that if a child was in care for a short time, say, six months, 48 hours' notice of removal should be given, and then there was a rising scale of notice. As I am informed, most of the professional organisations who were consulted—apart,
1264
I believe from the National Foster Care Association—held the view that something rather less elastic was desirable, and that we should accept the compromise which produced the present Amendment.
I may be wrong, because I have not been able to steep myself in this Bill as has my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, whom I am certain we all miss. But as I understand it, if this particular aspect of the Bill goes wrong, the Secretary of State can lay an Order before three years. If I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord. As I read the Bill, it says:
"The Secretary of State may by order a draft of which has been approved by each House of Parliament amend subsection (3A) of this section by substituting a different period for the period of 28 days or of 12 months…",
and so on. In my reading of the Bill, I do not see anything that confines the Secretary of State to a fixed period. If, say, in six months or nine months from now, some major mistake was made which he felt needed correcting, then the Secretary of State could do it under this particular subsection. Amendment No. 203 provides for a general periodic review of the Bill. I think it is different from the powers under this clause.
Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, can my noble friend give us an assurance that if experience shows these periods to be wrong, that the Secretary of State will not hesitate to make an Order of this kind? It would be of great help.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can give that assurance, because my right honourable friend very nearly took the view expressed by the noble Lord opposite. He has had to balance the various pieces of advice given to him and he came down on the compromise I have described, but the powers of review are not circumscribed by time. If I am wrong, I will tell the noble Lord and the House.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 117]
Clause 49, page 30, leave out lines 4 to 10, and insert—
"(2) The following section is inserted after section 33 of the Children Act 1948—
'33A.—(1) Section 3(8) of this Act shall apply in relation to children who are not

1265
in the care of local authorities under section 1 of this Act but who arc in voluntary homes or are boarded out, as it applies by virtue of subsection (3A) of the said section 1 to children in the care of the local authority, except that in the case of a child who is not in the care of a local authority the references in subsection (3A) to a local authority shall be construed as references to the voluntary organisation in whose care the child is.
(2) For the purposes of this section—

(a) a child is boarded out if he is boarded out, by the voluntary organisation in whose care he is, with foster parents to live in their home as a member of their family;

(b) "voluntary home" includes a controlled community home and an assisted community home.""

8.25 p.m
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 117. With the permission of the House I should like to take with it the corresponding Scottish provision, Amendment No. 171. This Amendment is necessary to correct defects in subsection (3C) carried into the Bill on Report in your Lordships' House, reported in the Official Report for 3rd March, 1975, at columns 1170 to 1176. As now amended, the provision more closely matches subsection (3A) by applying to removal of children in the care of voluntary organisations the same time limit for requiring notice as applies to those children who have been in the care of local authorities, and the same penalty for failure to give 28 days' notice. I am sure your Lordships will be pleased to see these improvements. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottont.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 118 to 124]
Clause 50, page 30, line 45, after ("or") insert ("partly in the care of a local authority and partly").
Clause 50, page 30, line 46, leave out ("or partly the one and partly the other").
Clause 50, page 31, line 2, leave out from ("them") to ("and") in line 4 and insert ("the parental rights and duties with respect to that child").
Clause 50, page 31, line 5, leave out ("that parent") and insert ("the parent on whose account the resolution was passed").
Clause 50, page 32, line 14, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
(" (8) A resolution under this section shall cease to have effect if—

(a) the child is adopted;

(b) an order in respect of the child is made under section 13 or (Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975; or

(c)If a guardian of the child is appointed under section 5 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971".)

Clause 50, page 32, line 14, leave out lines 34 and 35.
Clause 50, page 32, line 47, at end insert ("or an order under section (Adoption of children abroad) of that Act").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 118 to 124 en bloc. This group of. Amendments are minor Amendments the first four being concerned with improving the wording of subsection 1(d) of Section 2 of the Children Act 1948, so as to make its meaning more clearly understood; and the other three being concerned with defining the circumstances in which a resolution passed by a local authority assuming parental rights and duties in respect of a child in its care would cease to apply. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 125]
Guardians ad litem and reports in care proceedings
Page 33, line 8, at end insert—
("4B.—(1) In any proceedings under section 2(5) or 4(3) or 4A of this Act. a juvenile court or the High Court may, where it considers it necessary in order to safeguard the interests of the child to whom the proceedings relate, by order make the child a party to the proceedings and appoint, subject to rules of court, a guardian ad litem of the child for the purposes of the proceedings.
(2) A guardian ad litem appointed in pursuance of this section shall be under a duty to safeguard the interests of the child in the manner prescribed by rules of court.
3) Section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973 shall apply in relation to complaints under section 2(5) or 4(3) of this Act as it applies in relation to applications under section 3(3) of the said Act of 1973".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment

1267
No. 125. With the permission of the House I would also wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 131, 132, 134 to 137.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be prepared to take Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 separately as group 10, this will be helpful.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, my Lords, I will do just that.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, might I suggest that we take Amendments Nos. 125, 131 and 132 together? May I explain to your Lordships that the noble Lord is in a difficulty, because he has been extremely helpful to us in regrouping the, Amendments so that we can deal with the Scottish matters separately. Since we have laid this difficulty upon him and he has taken it uncomplainingly, I hope your Lordships will be patient with the difficulties which arise from this.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. The situation is that I am working from two documents, one of which is updated; I was looking at the wrong group of documents. We are now speaking on Nos.125. 131 and 132. These relate to a conflict of interest between the parent and child or young person, and this, I understand, stems from Amendments which were originally introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, at an earlier stage. Your Lordships will be aware that these provisions have attracted a great deal of interest among those concerned with the welfare of children, because they introduce into court proceedings involving children a new power which enables the court, where there is, or appears to be, a conflict of interest between parent and child, to order, first, that the parents may not represent their child in the proceedings: and, secondly, that a guardian ad litem should be appointed to act for the child.
Since the Bill left your Lordships' House these provisions have undergone a considerable change. Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 have restricted their scope to proceedings in a juvenile court under Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, related proceedings concerning the discharge or variation of care or supervision orders,
1268
and appeals to the Crown Court from decisions reached in the juvenile courts. On the other hand, Amendment No. 125 extends the principle of separate representation to proceedings in a juvenile court or a High Court which are concerned with orders confirming or terminating resolutions passed by local authorities assuming parental rights and duties in respect of a child. This Amendment enables the court, first, to make the child a party to the proceedings—I understand that under the existing law he is not a party—and then to appoint a guardian ad litem to act for him in order to safeguard his interests. The Amendment also enables the court to call upon a local authority or a probation officer for a report on any matter considered relevant to the proceedings.
The need to restrict the scope of the provisions for separate representation to proceedings of the kinds I have mentioned arises mainly from the fact that resources of manpower would not have been available to implement the clause in the form in which the Bill left your Lordships'House. We had a long discussion of this at an earlier stage. Since thatdate, the local authority associations have estimated that to implement the provisions as they now stand will require the equivalent of an additional 70 social workers. Had only one in ten of the proceedings covered by the clause in the Bill as it left your Lordships' House necessitated the appointment of a guardian ad litem, it would have been necessary to recruit an additional 450 social workers. Your Lordships will agree that at this time there would have been no foreseeable prospect of implementing it. This is the reason for the Amendment as it now stands, and I hope it is acceptable to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. We have attempted, at least, to implement the principles behind her wishes. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
8.35 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord for some further clarification? Could he classify a guardian ad litem, because in a very complicated case, a tug-of-love case

1269
where the two parents are fighting over the child, it might be very difficult for a young, inexperienced social worker to fight against somebody very much more experienced. Can the guardian ad litem be a solicitor? It does not say who it is to be. Must it be a social worker? I should not like to say anything in your Lordships 'House against social workers, but I think some are young and inexperienced. I was speaking on Monday to a probation officer from Hull. He was a guardian ad litem and he really did not seem to know what he was doing. I wonder, also, how much training they get for work with children in the courts.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I recognise the concern expressed by the noble Baroness. I remember the discussion that we had earlier on this point. Perhaps I may write to her on this subject, but if my recollection of our earlier discussions is correct we felt that the problem we were facing was that there might not be enough professional people available for this particular purpose. However, I think the noble Baroness would agree that the important characteristic of a guardian ad litem should be experience; and so one would hope that primarily a guardian ad litem would be an experienced social worker; not, as the noble Baroness said, a young, inexperienced person, but someone with knowledge of the hard facts of life behind them. The position is not, as I understand it, totally confined to social workers with professional qualifications; a solicitor could also act on the child's behalf.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I, like the noble Baroness, am very unhappy about this clause and the way it has been changed since it left this House. I was one who supported the noble Baroness from my own experience in juvenile courts. In juvenile proceedings, when a local authority wishes to take a child into care, or when the police think that a child should be taken into care, the local authority and the child and the parents are three different parties. I have always put back such cases for at least a week so that the child concerned shall be represented, and I always insist that the child shall be legally represented—this is the point the noble Baroness is making —not by a social worker but by somebody who is legally trained. The parents go to (pull with a highly qualified barris-
1270
ter, and it is quite impossible for a social worker, however well-intentioned, to stand up in court against legal arguments put forward by a barrister. I think this point is very important indeed. At some stage in the not-too-distant future I hope that we shall be able to make it absolutely certain that the child shall be represented by a legally qualified person. In my experience of 22 years this is absolutely vital for the child's welfare, I hope the noble Lord will be able to reassure us about this.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Macleod speaks from great experience in courts and in other fields, and, of course, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is uniquely qualified to speak on this particular subject, with her constant interest in this particular field. I supported my noble friend on the question of the guardian ad litem, and we appreciate what has been achieved in another place in discussions. Of course we regret the inevitability of the financial aspect, the narrowing of the commitment. Nevertheless, this will not be for all time; it may be that at a future date it will be possible once again to broaden this aspect. I think we should be pleased with what has been achieved in this particular field, and I should like to add my gratitude to that expressed by other noble Lords.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I was under the impression —but I speak without knowing—that in Scotland the guardian ad item is practically always a solicitor or a lawyer, and that it has been the custom to have a separate representative for the child in the cases which have been described as "tug-of-love". I do not know whether it is statutory or simply a custom that the child has a representative in the court, and that in the event of a quarrel between one or other of the so-called parents or guardians of the child, that person is very often a trained lawyer, or someone with legal experience. I know that social workers have been appointed as guardians ad litem,and that, on the whole, it has been successful because nobody appoints an inexperienced young social worker for a job of this kind, but someone who is more mature and has had greater experience. I should like to know, in regard to the Amendments which we have received from another place,

1271
whether it is obligatory for a child to be separately represented. If that has been deleted, then it is a great mistake. The child ought to be separately represented. Whether or not that can be put back, I do not know, and I do not know whether I am misinterpreting the clause.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I first reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot? As part of the operation that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, mentioned, we decided to remove the Scottish element from this discussion. I hope to discuss the points raised by the noble Baroness on Amendments Nos. 134 to 137, and 168. That is part of the operation of keeping Scotland separate from England, something which in general I do not particularly want to see, but in this area we have different systems of law.
We are really closer to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod and Lady Masham, than they think, because what we want is a doughty fighter to look after the interests of the child, and this implies experience. I would rather have an experienced social worker in this case than an inexperienced barrister. The situation is that guardians ad litem will be experienced social workers—there could also be solicitors—and they will be appointed from a panel set up by local authorities. No one can say, "I want to be a guardian ad litem". They have to be accepted as a suitable person by the local authority. The child is entitled to a solicitor as well as a guardian ad litem. The child could be represented by an experienced social worker and a solicitor, if the situation were sufficiently grave to justify that. That is the situation in which we find ourselves. I hope that your Lordships will accept this group of Amendments.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think I am in order in intervening in the debate. The noble Lord, unlike myself, has the privilege of speaking as often as he likes. There are two points to which I should like to revert here. The first is part of a recurrent theme, which is the availability of resources. It must be clear that not every social worker is an experienced social worker, and that even an experi-
1272
enced social worker is not equipped to represent a child in court or, indeed. to detect how the interests of the child may best be represented in court, even if that task is entrusted to somebody other than himself or herself. This, in turn, implies a fairly extensive system of retraining, or in-training, of social workers.
In so far as I can unravel the complexities of Amendment No. 210, which embodies the dates and stages at which different Parts of this Bill shall become effective, this is one of the provisions which rests with the Minister to decide when the time is ripe. I will be asking the noble Lord about other provisions, but I should now like to ask him when he thinks the time will he ripe in relation to this provision, bearing in mind the fact that it is no good declaring a campaign, rather like the King of Morocco, and sending totally unarmed troops into the field.
The other question which it occurred to me to ask in parenthesis—and in the asking of which I may reveal my ignorance—is whether, if you have a worthy and experienced social worker who finds his legal task beyond him, it is within his power and within the means of the service to retain qualified counsel to act for him in court. I apologise for not giving notice of that question. The noble Lord might like to write to me on the second one, but I should like him to say something now about the first one.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is, of course, a key question. We are living in troubled times, resources are limited, and I would be dishonest if I stated a fixed date for various stages of this Bill to operate. But I can at least give a statement of intent. My honourable friend the Minister of State is at this moment discussing with local authority associations the possibility of partial implementation in 1976–77 of the provisions for separate representation now embodied in the Bill. Implementation would probably be restricted to unopposed applications for discharge or variation of a care or supervision order that is, cases such as the Maria Colwell one. My honourable friend has expressed the view that full implementation of these important provisions should be a high priority for 1977–78. Let us hope

1273
that the country's financial position is such that these proposed dates will be possible.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 126–129]
After Clause 52, insert the following new clause—
Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations
.—(1) Where it appears to a local authority as respects a child in the care of a voluntary organisation which is an incorporated body—

(a) that the child is not in the care of any local authority; and

(b) that a condition specified in section 2(1) of the Children Act 1948 is satisfied; and

(c)that it is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the child for the parental rights and duties to be vested in the organisation,

the authority may, subject to subsections (5) and (6), resolve that there shall vest in the organisation the parental rights and duties with respect to that child.
(2) While a resolution under this section is in force the parental rights and duties shall vest in the organisation in whose care the child is when the resolution is passed.
(3) lf, immediately before the resolution is passed, the parental rights and duties are vested in the parent in relation to whom the resolution is passed jointly with any other person, then on the passing of the resolution the parental rights and duties shall vest jointly in that other person and the organisation in whose care the child is.
(4) In determining, for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, whether the condition specified in section 2(1)(b)(i) of the Children Act 1948 is satisfied, if the whereabouts of any parent of the child have remained unknown for twelve months, that parent shall be deemed to have abandoned the child.
(5) A resolution under subsection (1) may not he passed by a local authority in respect of any child unless—

(a) the child is living in the area of the authority either in a voluntary home or with foster parents with whom he has been boarded by the organisation in whose care he is; and

(b) that organisation has requested the authority to pass the resolution.

(6) The parental rights and duties which may vest in an organisation by virtue of this section do not include the right to consent or refuse to consent to the making of an application under section 13 and the right to agree or refuse to agree to the making of an adoption order or an order under section (Adoption of children abroad): and regulations made under section 33(1) of the Children Act 1948 shall apply to the emigration of a child notwithstanding that the parental rights and duties relating
1274
to the child are vested in the voluntary organisation.
(7) Subsection (8) of section 2 of the Children Act 1948 shall apply in relation to a resolution under subsection (I) as if it were a resolution under the said section 2.'
Insert the following new clause:
Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties
(" .—(1) If it appears to a local authority, having regard to the interests of the welfare of a child living within their area, the parental rights and duties with respect to whom are by virtue of a resolution under section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) vested in a voluntary organisation, that it is necessary that the parental rights and duties should no longer be vested in the organisation, the local authority shall resolve that there shall vest in them the parental rights and duties relating to the child.
(2) The local authority shall within seven days of passing a resolution under subsection (1) by notice in writing inform the organisation and each parent, guardian or custodian of the child whose whereabouts are known to them that the resolution has been passed.")
Insert the following new clause:
Effect of resolutions under sections (Transfer of parental rights and dirties to voluntary organisations) and (Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties.)
(" .—(1) A resolution under subsection (1) of section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) shall cease to have effect on the passing of a resolution under subsection (1) of section (Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties).
(2) Section 6 of the Children Act 1948 shall have effect in relation to a resolution under subsection (I) of section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) as it has effect in relation to a resolution under section 2 of that Act.
(3) A resolution under subsection (1) of section (Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties) shall be deemed to be a resolution under section 2 of the Children Act 1948 except that sections 2(2) to (7) and 4(3) of that Act shall not apply.").
Insert the following new clause:
Appeals by parents, etc.
(" .—(1) Subsections (2) to (5) and (7) of section 2 of the Children Act 1948 shall apply to a resolution under section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) as they apply to a resolution under the said section 2, with the substitution for the reference in subsection (2) to the vesting of parental rights and duties in the local authority of a reference to the vesting of parental rights and duties in the voluntary organisation.
(2) An appeal may be made—

(a) where the complaint relates to a resolution under section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations), by a person deprived of

1275
parental rights and duties by the resolution, or

(b) where the complaint relates to a resolution under section (Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and duties), by a person who but for that resolution and an earlier resolution under section (Transfer of parental rights and duties to voluntary organisations) would

have parental rights and duties, to a juvenile court having jurisdiction in the area of the authority which passed there solution, on the ground that—

(i) there was no ground for the making of the resolution, or

(ii) that the resolution should in the interests of the child be determined.

(3) An appeal shall lie to the High Court against the decision of a juvenile court under this section.
(4) Section 4B of the Children Act 1948 shall apply in relation to proceedings under this section.'.")
8.48 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos 126 to 129, and take with them Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 as part of the discussion. These Amendments are being taken together because they are all concerned with new powers which have been added to the Bill to meet the wishes of voluntary child care organisations such as Dr. Barnardo's, the National Children's Home and others, which provide residential care. These organisations have long fell themselves to be handicapped in looking after children in their care by not being able to have powers comparable to these of local authorities under Section 2 of the Children Act 1948 which allow a local authority, on grounds specified in the Act, to assume by resolution parental rights and duties in respect of a child in the local authority's care. The new clauses will enable a local authority to pass a resolution in respect of a child in the care of a voluntary organisation on the same grounds as those in Section 2 of the 1948 Act.
The effect of the resolutions will be to transfer parental rights and duties in respect of the child to the voluntary organisation. The new provisions contain power for the local authority, by further resolution, to revest—that is a new word to me—in itself the parental rights and duties in respect of a child where it considers that the interests of the child require that the voluntary organisation should no longer have those rights and
1276
duties. The interests of the parents are protected by giving them rights of objection to the passing of a resolution and complaint to a juvenile court comparable to those in Sections 2 and 4 of the Children Act 1948. Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 are related Amendments to Schedule 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we have at earlier stages of the Bill welcomed these provisions. This affords some protection for the bodies referred to; that is, voluntary bodies and bodies with delegated powers by local authorities and local authorities themselves. This is a successful group of Amendments which should be welcomed.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, to clear up a point which has confused me in reading this block-buster of a new set of provisions that has come through? I refer to a passage in Amendment No. 127 which states:
"(2) The local authority shall. within seven days of passing a resolution under subsection (1), by notice in writing inform the organisation and each parent, guardian or custodian of the child whose whereabouts are known to them that the resolution has been passed.')"
What confuses me is the fact that if the rights are being taken back in respect of the voluntary body, then the question of the custodian comes up because I believe that the custodian, if he is still a custodian, has parental rights. I find this rather confusing and I would be grateful if the noble Lord would enlighten us on this point.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord will allow me to write to him on this subject. This is a jungle for me and I am lost in it. It is probably a perfectly clear statement if one is an expert, which I am not, and therefore, with his permission, I will write to him about it.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 130]
Leave out Clause 53.
8.52 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. This is an important point for

1277
discussion and it relates to an Amendment which, if I recollect aright, was initiated in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Your Lordships will be aware that the Government opposed this clause on Report in this House, not because of any dispute about its underlying purpose, which was to bring about greater co-ordination between the statutory and voluntary agencies concerned with the welfare of children, but because, in the Government's view, the method proposed was unlikely to achieve this end. The Association of Directors of Social Services commented on Clause 53 in its document Comments on the Children Bill and said that although the intentions were praiseworthy, the mere distribution of copies of orders would not ensure the protection of children. In fact, copies of orders distributed in the way proposed might well take some time to reach the person most closely concerned with the child. That is an important point.
The Government's view is that the aims of Clause 53 are more likely to be achieved by administrative means than by the distributions of copies of orders. Circulars have therefore been issued containing guidance on the diagnosis, care and management of cases of non-accidental injury to children and the need for improvement in co-ordination of the services for children. As a result, the whole of England is now covered by area review committees on which all the services concerned with children are represented. These committees ensure that case conferences are held immediately a child at risk is identified, and all senior and field personnel are kept informed about each case. The Government therefore moved an Amendment, which was accepted in Committee in another place, to remove Clause 53 from the Bill, it being thought that the administrative measures which had been taken had made the measures proposed in Clause 53 unnecessary. We appreciate and understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, but I hope we can convince him, at least at this stage, that the area review committees should be allowed a chance to prove their competence.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord and I wonder whether he can go further. But first let me say that I do not propose to advise anybody to resist this Amendment, the purpose of which may well be achieved by better means and, maybe in part, by the means which the noble Lord has already described. The work of the area review committees will be one of the things to be looked at in the review three years after the measure comes into effect and will, I trust, be looked at closely. I am well aware of the number and force of the circulars which have gone out following the Maria Colwell, Lisa Godfrey and Bravery cases. It has been the subject of some distress to us that the cases have continued since the original circulars were set in motion, but one must accept that changes in practice take time to initiate and even more time for those working them to become familiarised with them.
However, what heartens me even more than the area review committee procedure is that I understand there is a system, now fairly generally in operation in most areas, of voluntary registration of cases of suspected non-accidental injury to children and I feel that this is a necessary corollary to the review committees, because they must have evidence, or at least suspicions, to review. I should be grateful if the noble Lord would give a brief resume of the way the system works and the sources of information which are open to those who maintain the register. I understand that the system is voluntary and is, therefore, piecemeal in the sense that not only are parts of the country not covered by it, but also that each part of the country has a slightly different system. As we agreed at an earlier stage of the Bill, one of the features of the non-accidental injury to children syndrome, if I may call it that, is the frequently very inconvenient and administratively difficult mobility of the families in question. The cases are very often associated with housing difficulty, and that in itself is associated with frequent and rapid removal, with not very easily traced lines of communication.
From that point of view, as well as from the point of view of administrative facility, it would be an extremely good thing if, at an early time, there

1279
was a standardised form of register and a standardised procedure for making entries on that register and for following them up so that, when a child arrives in Bootle from Exeter—and is in no less peril in Bootle than in Exeter—there shall be no time spent in wondering what this odd pro forma that has come from the West Country in fact means. I am aware that the Government may be in difficulty with certain civil rights movements who feel that the recording of any possibly deleterious information centrally is a threat to individual liberty. My own unshakeable conviction is that where the happiness and safety of a small child is at stake, that is more important than any philosophical considerations such as those.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Elton said about the excellent principles and ideas behind this co-operation on a voluntary basis between all the interests concerned. But supposing it does not work, if one still has in the Bill a clause such as Clause 53, one will have statutory powers which one can enforce. If these groups are not functioning properly, what power is there under the Act to interfere and insist that something more effective shall be done? If it is taken out of the Bill there will be no statutory power to back this up.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, to reply first to the noble Baroness, the point at which, if what we are trying to achieve by the Bill proves unsatisfactory, action can be taken may be the three-year review. Amendment No. 203 is the relevant Amendment and perhaps we could have a brief word on this subject when that Amendment is dealt with.
As regards the point of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about an ancillary organisation to the area review committee, this is, I must admit, new to me, but clearly it is of importance, because I believe that it is the sense of individual responsibility and conscience among the members of our society which will improve that society rather than legislation. At the end of the day, it is the general feeling of the average man and woman as to what is right and what is wrong which will decide what sort of society we have.
1280
I feel that the matter is sufficiently interesting for me to make the suggestion to the noble Lord that he might put down an Unstarred Question so that we could have a brief discussion of the subject, because then I could answer him with clarity and on an up-to-date basis which, at present, I am unable to do. I believe that it is worth doing, because, as we all recognise, this is not the last word on this subject and a follow-up along these lines might be of value.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 131 and 131]
Clause 54, page 33, line 38, leave out ("section is") and insert ("sections are").
Clause 54, page 33, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 34 on page 34, and insert—
"Conflict of interest between parent and child or young person
32A.—(1) If before or in the course of proceedings in respect of a child or young person—

(a) in pursuance of section 1 of this Act, or

(b) on an application under section 15(1) of this Act for the discharge of a relevant supervision order or a supervision order made under section 21(2) of this Act on the discharge of a relevant care order; or

(c) on an application under section 21(2) of this Act for the discharge of a relevant care order or a care order made under section 15(1) of this Act on the discharge of a relevant supervision order; or

(d) on an appeal to the Crown Court under section 2(12) of this Act, or

(e) on an appeal to the Crown Court under section 16(8) of this Act against the dismissal of an application for the discharge of a relevant supervision order or against a care order made under section 15(1) on the discharge of—

(i) a relevant supervision order; or

(ii) a supervision order made under section 21(2) on the discharge of a relevant care order; or

(f) on an appeal to the Crown court under section 21(4) of this Act against the dismissal of an application for the discharge of a relevant care order or against a supervision order made under section 21(2) on the discharge of—

(i) a relevant care order; or

(ii) a care order made under section 15(1) on the discharge of a relevant supervision order,'.

it appears to the court that there is or may be a conflict, on any matter relevant to the proceedings, between the interests of the child or young person and those of his parent or guardian, the court may order that in relation to the proceeding the parent or guardian is not to be treated as representing the child or young

1281
person or as otherwise authorised to act on his behalf.
(2) If an application such as is referred to in subsection (1)(b) or (c) of this section is unopposed, the court, unless satisfied that to do so is not necessary for safeguarding the interests of the child or young person, shall order that in relation to proceedings on the application no parent or guardian of his shall be treated as representing him or as otherwise authorised to act on his behalf; but where the application was made by a parent or guardian on his behalf the order shall not invalidate the application.
(3) Where an order is made under subsection (1) or (2) of this section for the purposes of proceeding on an application within subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section, that order shall also have effect for the purposes of any appeal to the Crown court arising out of those proceedings.
(4) The power of the court to make orders for the purposes of an application within subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section shall also be exercisable, before the hearing of the application, by a single justice.
(5) In this section—
"relevant care order" means a care order made under section 1 of this Act,
"relevant supervision order" means a supervision order made under section 1 of this Act.
Safeguarding of interests of child or young person where section 32A order is made
32B.—(1) Where the court makes an order under section 32A(2) of this Act the court, unless satisfied that to do so is not necessary for safeguarding the interests of the child or young person, shall in accordance with rules of court appoint a guardian ad litem of the child or young person for the purposes of the proceedings.
In this subsection "court" includes a single justice.
(2) Rules of court shall provide for the appointment of a guardian ad litem of the child or young person for the purposes of any proceedings to which an order under section 32A(1) of this Act relates.
(3) A guardian ad litem appointed in pursuance of this section shall be under a duty to safeguard the interests of the child or young person in the manner prescribed by rules of court.".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 en bloc. These were discussed with Amendment No. 125 and relate to separate representation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 133]
Clause 55, page 34, line 46, at end insert—
("In this subsection "guardian" has the same meaning as in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 133. This is a very simple drafting Amendment to enable a person who has custody of a child—for instance, a custodian—to fall within the definition of "guardian" for the purposes of the Legal Aid Act 1974 so as to be eligible for legal aid within the terms of Clause 55.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 134–137]
Clause 56, page 35, line 18, leave out ("an officer of a local authority or other") and insert ("a")
Clause 56, page 35, leave out lines 20 to 23 and insert—
("(ii) without prejudice to any existing power to appoint a person to represent the interests of the child, may, if he thinks fit, appoint a person to act for the purpose specified in paragraph (i) above".)
Clause 56, page 35, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—
(" (ii) appointment under subsection (1) of this section, the functions of a person so appointed and any right of such a person to information relating to the proceedings in question")
Clause 56, page 35, leave out lines 34 to 40 and insert—
"(3) The expenses of a person appointed under subsection (1) of this section shall—

(a) in so far as reasonably incurred by him in safeguarding the interests of the child in the proceedings, and

(b) except in so far as otherwise defrayed in terms of regulations made under section 71(2) of the Children Act 1975,

be borne by the local authority for whose area the children's panel from which the relevant children's hearing has been constituted is formed.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) of this section, "relevant children's hearing" means—

(a) in the case of proceedings referred to in subsection (1)(a) of this section, the children's hearing;

(b) in the case of proceedings referred to in subsection (1)(b) of this section, the children's hearing who have directed the application;

1283

(c) in the case of proceedings referred to in subsection (1)(c) of this section. the children's hearing whose decision is being appealed against.").

Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 134 to 137, and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 168. At an earlier stage of our discussions, I indicated to the noble Baroness. Lady Elliot of Harwood, that we had decided that it would be convenient to discuss the Scottish interests together. Amendments Nos. 134 to 137, together with Amendment No. 168, make changes to the Scottish provisions in Clause 56 relating to the safeguarding of children's interests in proceedings before a children's hearing or in court proceedings arising from a children's hearing. I can assure your Lordships that these Amendments make only minor alterations to Clause 56 as it was when it was last considered in this House. Amendment No. 134 relates to the person who may be appointed to safeguard the interests of a child. As read with the second part of Amendment No. 202, it would permit the chairman of a hearing or the sheriff, as the case may be, to make an appointment from the panel established under Clause 71.
Amendment No. 135 is a drafting Amendment, which is intended to correct a possible ambiguity in the wording of the existing provision. Amendment No. 136 is a consequential Amendment to Amendment No. 134. It will deal with the question of which persons might be suitable for appointment to safeguard children's interests—this was an interesting point which was raised earlier, and I stress the words "might be suitable"—for example, members of the panel set up under Clause 71, or persons who should not be appointed, possibly because they are officers of the local authority which is already closely involved in the case.
Amendment No. 137 adjusts a less than adequate provision in the existing clause. It provides that, where a person is appointed to safeguard the interests of a child in proceedings before a children's hearing or in any court proceedings arising from a children's hearing, the expenses reasonably incurred are to be met by the local authority, or where that person is appointed from the panel established under Clause 71 in accord-
1284
ance with the regulations made under that clause.
The new subsection differs from the existing subsection in providing that the expenses of persons appointed in connection with cases before the courts will now fall to be met by the local authority, whereas under the existing subsection they were to be regarded as "expenses in the cause"; that is, they would be met by the party awarded expenses possibly with assistance under legal aid. I feel we know what that might mean. The original provision would have presented complications in that the sheriff under the appropriate court rules (Act of Sederunt (Social Work) (Sheriff Court Procedure Rules) 1971) cannot award expenses in court proceedings deriving from children's hearings, and therefore could not allocate the expenses of the appointment either to the child or the parents. That is a real jungle and, for a poor Sassenach, quite beyond understanding.
Amendment No. 168 deals with safeguarding the interests of a child in court proceedings relating to the vesting of parental rights in a local authority or a voluntary organisation. It is the Scottish equivalent of Amendment No. 125 for England and Wales. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for putting forward these Amendments. I do not disagree with any of them. In Scotland, we have always been anxious that the child ought to be represented by its own representative, very often someone with a legal background and training. The question of the expenses, and the difference in the way in which the courts work in Scotland and in England, arises because the children's hearings were a new experiment. They were financed by the county councils, whereas before the children's hearings were inaugurated children appeared before the sheriff and the expenses were met by the sheriff court.
These Amendments all seem to be advantageous. The noble Lord has also moved a new clause to he inserted after Clause 59, and it is clearly stated that the interests of the child shall be paramount, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder,

1285
used to say when we discussed this Bill previously. I have no objections to these Amendments, and I am happy to support them.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, being a full-blooded Scot, I should like to say how proud I am to hear how well organised Scotland is compared with England.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 140 and 141]
After Clause 56, insert the following new clause:
Recovery of children in care of local authorities
.—(1) This section applies to a child—

(a) who is in the care of a local authority under section 1 of the Children Act 1948; and

(b) with respect to whom there is in force a resolution under section 2 of that Act; and

(c) who—

(i) has run away from accommodation provided for him by the local authority under Part II of the said Act; or

(ii) has been taken away from such accommodation contrary to section 3(8) of the said Act: or

(iii) has not been returned to the local authority as required by a notice served under section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963 on a person under whose charge and control the child was, in accordance with section 13(2) of the said Act of 1948, allowed to be.

(2) If a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person specified in the information can produce the child to whom this section applies, he may issue a summons directed to the person so specified and requiring him to attend and produce the child before a magistrates' court acting for the same petty sessions area as the justice.
(3) Without prejudice to the powers under subsection (2) above, if a justice of the peace is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a child to whom this section applies is in premises specified in the information, he may issue a search warrant authorising a person named in the warrant, being an officer of the local authority in whose care the child is. to search the premises for the child; and if the child is found, he shall be placed in such accommodation as the local authority may provide for him under Part II of the Children Act 1948.
(4) A person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a summons under subsection (2) shall, without prejudice to any liability
1286
apart from this subsection, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.")
Insert the following new Clause—
Extension of powers under section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969
(" .—(1) Section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (detention of absentees) shall have effect subject to the following provisions of this section.
(2) In subsection (1) of the said section 32, paragraph (b) shall cease to have effect.
(3) After subsection (1) of the said section 32, there is inserted the following subsection:
"(1A) If a child or young person is absent from a place of safety to which he has been taken in pursuance of section 2(5). 16(3) or 28 of this Act without the consent of—

(a) the person who made the arrangements for his detention in the place of safety in pursuance of the said section 2(5) or 16(3), or

(b) the person on whose application an authorisation relating to the child or young person has been issued under the said section 28,

he may be arrested by a constable anywhere in the United Kingdom or the Channel Islands without a warrant, and shall, if so arrested, he conducted to the place of safety at the expense of the person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b) (as the case be) of this subsection.
(4) In subsection (2) of the said section 32. after the words "subsection (1)" there are inserted the words "or (IA)", and for the words "twenty pounds" there is substituted the word "£100".
(5) After the said subsection (2), the following subsections are inserted—
"(2A) Without prejudice to its powers under subsection (2) of this section, a magistrates' court (within the meaning of that subsection) may, if it is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a person who is absent as mentioned in subsection (I) or (1A) of this section is in premises specified in the information, issue a search warrant authorising a constable to search the premises for that person.
(2B) A court shall not issue a summons or search warrant under subsection (2) or (2A) of this section in any case where the person who is absent is a person to whom subsection (IA) of this section applies, unless the information referred to in the said subsection (2) or (2A) is given by the person referred to in subsection (1A)(a) or (b) (as the case may be) of this section.".
(6) In subsection (3) of the said section 32, for the words "one hundred pounds" there is substituted the word"£400".
(7) In subsection (4) of the said section 32, for the words "subsection (1)" there are substituted the words "subsections (1), (IA) and (2A)", and for the words "that subsection" there are substituted the words " subsection (1)".")
9.10 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 140 and 141.
These Amendments relate to the retrieval of the child. We are again treating Scotland separately. Amendment No. 140 introduces new powers which will enable local authorities to effect the recovery of children in their care and subject to parental rights and duties resolutions, who have either run away or been taken away from the place at which they are required by the local authority to live. The Amendment also covers the recovery of children in the same category who have been allowed by the local authority to live with a parent, guardian, relative or friend, and have not been returned by that person to the care of the local authority on being given written notice to do so in accordance with Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963.
Amendment No. 141 adds to the existing powers of recovery of a child or young person who is absent without authority from the place at which he is required to live. The Amendment also gives the court an additional power, on information given under oath, to issue a search warrant to enable a constable to search premises where the absentee is believed to be, and if he is found the constable will then be able to use his existing powers to return the absentee to the place from which he is absent. The Amendment also extends the scope of Section 32 to cover absences from all places of safety. The section now in the 1969 Act covers absences from places of safety which are community homes, but does not cover absences from other places of safety such as hospitals, surgeries, police stations or any other suitable place.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 142 to 143]
Insert the following new Clause—
Certificates of unruly character
(" . The court shall not certify under section 22(5) or section 23(2) or (3) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 (committals to remand centres or prison) that a child is of so unruly a character that he cannot safely be committed to the care of a local authority unless the conditions prescribed by order made by the Secretary of State are satisfied in relation to that child.
In this section, "court" includes a justice".)
Insert the following new Clause—
Children of unruly character in Scotland
(".The following provisions of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 (which relate to children of unruly character) shall be amended in the manner specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) below—
(a) in sections 23(1)(b), 24(1), 297(1) and 329(1)(b) of the said Act of 1975 the following words are added at the end—
"; but the court shall not so certify a child unless such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order made by Statutory Instrument prescribe are satisfied in relation to the child.";
(b) in sections 23(3) and 329(3) of the said Act of 1975 the following words are added at the end—
";but a commitment shall not be so revoked unless such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order made by Statutory Instrument prescribe are satisfied in relation to the said person.";
(c)in sections 24(2) and 297(2) of the said Act of 1975 the following words are added at the end—
";but a commitment shall not be so revoked unless such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order made by Statutory Instrument prescribe are satisfied in relation to the child.".")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 142 and 143. I am looking forward to dealing with this point because, as I said at an earlier stage in the consideration of this Bill, the world seems to be peopled by villainous parents and angelic children, but those of us who have brought up families know that this is not always the case. This group relates to unruly certificates. Amendment No. 142 gives the Secretary of State power to prescribe by Order the conditions which must be satisfied before courts issue unruly certificates authorising the commitment of

1289
juveniles who are remanded to Prison Department establishments. The Amendment reflects the widespread and growing concern in Parliament and outside at the number of juveniles now being held in prisons and remand centres in pursuance of more than 3,000 unruly certificates now being issued annually. Amendment No. 143 provides corresponding powers in Scotland.
The number of remands to Prison Department establishments of juveniles charged with a criminal offence, and certified to be of so unruly a character that they cannot safely be committed to the care of the local authority, has risen steeply in recent years. The number of receptions to prison of boys aged 14 to 16 rose from under 2,000 in 1971 to more than 3,500 in 1974. The number of certificates issued in respect of girls rose from under 100 in 1971 to nearly 250 in 1974—and I should like to remind noble Baronesses that comparisons are odious. The sending of these young people to Prison Department establishments and in particular in the case of girls and some boys to establishments in which adult prisoners arc held—and I know that this is a matter of concern to the noble Baroness. Lady Masham—has attracted growing and widespread criticism. In evidence to the Social Services and Employment Sub-Committee of the Expenditure Committee, the Home Office witnesses explained that it was the Government's wish to end such remands as soon as satisfactory alternative provision could be made, and Ministers have announced that they are examining urgently the possibility of making a start by ending the remand of 14-year-old girls to Prison Department establishments.
However, I regret that the continuance of such remands, in particular for the older and more difficult junveniles, will clearly need to continue for some little time at least. The Ministers have therefore decided that some degree of consistency and uniformity in the criteria on which such certificates are issued should be prescribed by regulations. The purpose of the new clauses is to empower the Secretary of State to prescribe by order the conditions which must be satisfied before courts issue unruly certificates authorising the commitment of juveniles who are remanded to Prison Department establishments. I think your Lordships
1290
will agree that it was right to take advantage of the legislative opportunity provided by the Bill, even at this late stage of its passage, to take this regulating power. The Government would, of course, have liked to consult the various interests concerned, including the courts and the social services, before deciding on these clauses, but time has not permitted more than some interim informal consultations. However, I should like to repeat the categoric assurance given by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place, that the Government will consult these bodies fully on the form, content and timing of the bringing into operation of the regulations. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for explaining that so clearly, but also to ask him whether, in building more establishments for children who cannot be held in community homes, the Government are intending to build more secure places, because this is where the problem lies. There just are not the community homes which can hold them. Therefore, girls are going to Holloway Prison and boys are going to, for instance, the borstal where I work. Just lately I have had several boys who, having been with us in borstal and having gone back to school, actually prefer borstal. Their biggest problem with school is truancy. I had one boy who had been to school three times, I think, in one term. This is the great problem. There has been a lot in the Press lately about the need for more establishments where children can continue their education but from which they will not be able to abscond all the time, and where they will be treated by people who understand them. The schools just cannot cope.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I add one word to this debate? I think the general effect of the Amendments is extremely good. but I wonder whether the Department responsible has really examined the position in each individual area. Some areas ale very much better provided for than are others, and it rather worries me that,

1291
taking a general view of the effect of these Amendments, it would not necessarily fit into the particular area concerned. I remember that quite a long time ago, when I was in another place, we had a very difficult situation in Durham. There, a boy who could not be sent to an institution where he would be looked after was, at the request of his parents, sent to Durham gaol. The result was that the boy, who was of course a very difficult and unruly boy, in the end hanged himself there. The magistrates who had sent the boy to Durham gaol came in for a great deal of criticism, which was really quite unfair because the parents had demanded that the boy be sent somewhere where he could be looked after, and there was nowhere else to send him. The parents, therefore, had agreed to him being sent there. But it really was very disturbing that a boy was sent to Durham gaol and, therefore, hanged himself.
All I am saying is that we are putting on the Statute Book excellent provisions, providing all the necessary arrangements exist in the areas. I understood that the noble Lord was to consult with various local authorities and so on. This, I am sure, is excellent; but the point is that if we now put this on the Statute Book and find when the consultations have taken place that in some areas there is very much more provision for the unruly than in others, how are we going to get a proper balance? I am really disturbed about the fact that very good legislation dealing with the matter overall may be produced; yet when the investigations take place one finds tremendous differences in one area compared with another. How will it be possible to balance all the areas so that they all should have the advantages of the general provisions on the Statute Book? I wonder whether the noble Lord could give me some information on this matter.
I should not like to think of people having to face the situation that we faced in my part of the country years ago when this boy hanged himself and the magistrates got the blame. I know that in my part of the country we have not got as full arrangements as have other parts of the country for dealing with these matters. If there is any money to be spent, I should
1292
like to know that our part of the country is properly looked after. The South is better off than we are in this regard and, while I certainly support the idea in every way, I do not want to find the North in a more difficult position than any other part of the country. Can the noble Lord give me some information on that?
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I am very worried about this clause, about the Secretary of State prescribing conditions as a result of which the courts can give an unruly certificate. I wonder whether the noble Lord knows now the regulations that the Secretary of State will apply to the Benches.
The noble Lord was absolutely right, in that I suppose in every case in which I asked the parent what the boy was like at home, I was told, "He is always good at home". But, unfortunately, they are not good when they leave their homes. In my court we sometimes—not often: but the figures have escalated—have to make out certificates for unruly children who will never stay in one place. They will go out burgling every night. We try to keep them in a place of safety, of which there are so few; but they run away from places of safety and go round burgling again. As well as safeguarding the welfare of children and bringing them to order as much as one can under the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, it is also the duty of the court to prevent this kind of thing happening as often as it does.
In this connection, one of the things we do is to grant an unruly certificate for that time. We then receive adequate Ashford Custodial Remand Home for three weeks. We then receive adequate reports from very experienced people and, as a result of the reports that are made under this clause of the unruly certificates, we are then enabled to make our judgment on the child. The child has to be kept somewhere where he cannot flagrantly go against the law the whole time. As the noble Baroness. Lady Masham of Ilton, said, it is of vital importance that the child is taught at some time in his life that he cannot continue breaking the law. I should like to know what conditions the Secretary of State is going to lay down by way of regulations to the magistrates for giving unruly certificates. They will be very important.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think my remarks will be helpful to the noble Lord, and may bear out what my noble friend Lady Ward said. There is a Committee about to report to the Home Secretary—the Pack Committee—regarding unruly and uncontrollable children. This Report may deal with and may cover a number of anxieties expressed by my noble friend Lady Ward; hence it may enlarge on the important factors stressed by my noble friend Lady Macleod. I hope the noble Lord may be able to indicate in his reply when we may expect the Pack Report to be received.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot give a date, but I will write to the noble Lord about that. May I try to reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside. She knows as well as I do that we live in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and—thank goodness!—the various regions of this country are as different as chalk and cheese. It does not mean to say that because one region is rich it is virtuous, and because another is poor it is not virtuous. Conditions are often exactly the opposite. I agree in many ways that there is a regional element regarding the problem. The requirements of regions differ. Regional planning committees were established in 1969, and one of their early concerns was the need for a substantial increase in secure provision both for assessment purposes—that is, the purposes served by the former remand homes—and for relatively long term treatment in community homes with education on the premises which relate to the former approved schools. Here I may give a small pointer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton. The regional plans currently include proposals for the provision of 480 additional secure places, 203 in observation and assessment centres and 277 in community homes with education and assessment centres and 277 in community homes with education on the premises. The achievement of this will depend upon the way we resolve our economic problems. That is the intention of the regional planning committees. I am reasonably certain that the regional planning committees will tailor their needs to their specific regional requirements.
1294
Regarding the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, I said earlier we are grabbing at a chance in this Bill to give the Secretary of State power to give general guidance on this difficult problem area. We should, in advance of legislation, have liked to consult the various interests concerned, including the courts and social services. I want to repeat the categoric assurance which was given by my honourable friend the Minister of State in another place that the Government will consult those bodies fully in the form, content and timing of the bringing into operation of the regulations. This assurance applies particularly to the Magistrates' Association which will be consulted about the contents of the regulations. I should like to give the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, advance warning, so that she can feed into her machine any information which she wants to go to the Secretary of State. May I retract an earlier remark—a very happy state of affairs! The "pigeon post" informs me that the Pack Committee is expected to report towards the end of 1976.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord casts aside his notes, could he confirm that the regional committees are planning for 480 secure places? Am I right on the figure and are those places for 480 people, or is it places which contain more than one person?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I imagine that 480 additional secure places means 480 beds, in which 480 people can sleep—not 480 buildings.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 143A and 143B]
Insert the following clause:
Grants in respect of secure accommodation for children in England and Wales
" . The following section is inserted after section 64 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969—
"64A.—(l) The Secretary of State may make to local authorities out of moneys provided by Parliament grants of such amount and subject to such conditions as he may with the consent of the Teasury determine in respect of expenditure incurred by the authorities in providing secure accommodation in community homes other than assisted community homes.
(2) The Secretary of State may with the consent of the Treasury require the local authority to repay the grant, in whole or in part, if the secure accommodation in respect of which the grant was made (including such accommodation in a controlled community home) ceases to be used as such.
(3) In this section secure accommodation "means accommodation provided for the purposes of restricting the liberty of children in a community home".")
Insert the following new clause:
Grants in respect of secure accommodation for children in Scotland
" . The following section is inserted after section 59 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968: —
59A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make to a local authority grants of such amount and subject to such conditions as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine in respect of expenditure incurred by the authority in—

(a) providing;

(b) joining with another local authority in providing; or

(c) contributing by way of grant under section 10(3) of this Act to the provision by a voluntary organisation of;

secure accommodation in residential establishments.
(2) The conditions subject to which grants are made under subsection (1) of this section may include conditions for securing the repayment in whole or in part of such grants.
(3) In this section "secure accommodation" means accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting the liberty of children.""
9.30 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 143A and 143B together. The purpose of Amendment No. 143A is to give the Secretary of State power to make grants to local authorities to provide secure accommodation in community homes other than assisted community homes. The Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by my right honourable friend the Minister of State in another place on 20th June this year. Amendment No. 143B introduces a corresponding new clause for Scotland. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, this is very germane to what we have been discussing, and indeed to the 480 secure places that were mentioned, which is not a very large figure in comparison with 3,500 or more sentences per annum. Moreover, we realise that this is not a net increase in funds but represents the payment of grants as opposed to loans. There is no immediate tide of cash which will result in the building of these places in the instant future unless circumstances change more rapidly than we at present expect. Moreover, the expense of providing secure places is comprised not only in the provision of bricks, mortar, washbasins and so on. May I instance a residential home for physically handicapped adults in Coventry of which the noble Lord may be aware. This is due to be completed in June 1976 but is unlikely to be occupied until the financial year 1978–79, because one needs staff and they must be found and trained. Here we come back to the continuing theme of when is the money going to be forthcoming and when is the Bill going to be more than good intentions?—because when none of the bricks, mortar and people is available, the presence of an intention on the Statute Book does little to resolve the very pressing problems which beset our society and which are intensified, I believe, by putting children into prison when they ought to be in very strict homes.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, if I may be allowed to speak again on this point, I know perfectly well that near me in the North Pollington borstal is now empty, and there is a property which could well be used as a secure place. This would be far better than putting people in prison. I think that in the Children Bill we should certainly mention this: we would rather have them in secure places than in prisons with adults.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I am sure the noble Baroness's comment will be noted by my honourable friend. It sounds a very sensible suggestion, and I would also agree with everybody who relates good intentions to hard cash. The intentions of the present Administration to increase the productivity of British industry and its efficiency can in due course, if properly applied, bring benefits directly

1297
through this important and humane legislation we are now discussing. I hope that the resources will soon match the intentions.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 144]
Clause 57, page 36, line 3, leave out paragraph (a).
9.35 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to take together Amendment No. 144 with No. 169 which relate to Scotland. Amendment No. 144 is a paving Amendment to No. 169 which transfers to Section 20 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 the general duty on local authorities in respect of children in their care. This duty requires the local authority in reaching any decision relating to a child in their care to give first consideration to the need to promote the welfare of the child and for this purpose to ascertain his wishes and feelings so far as may be practicable. It is appropriate that this duty should appear in Section 20 of the 1968 Act which deals with all children in care regardless of whether they came into care by voluntary arrangements under Section 15 or otherwise. I know that this is in harmony with the wishes of the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I entirely agree with this. This is exactly what I have always wanted and I am delighted to find this provision in the Bill.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 145 and 146]
Clause 57, page 36, line 20, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
Page 36, line 35, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("six").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to move Amendment No. 146 together with No. 145. I would move them formally because they were discussed with Amendments Nos. 115 and
1298
116 relating to notice of intention to remove a child. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Champion): My Lords, perhaps I should mention at this stage that there are a number of corrections set out on two lists. Unless anyone in the House objects, I do not propose to read these out but will take it for granted that the House is aware of the fact that they will be included in the Amendments to be considered.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 147 to 164]
Clause 58, page 36, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 36 on page 37 and insert—
Resolution by local authority in respect of assumption and vesting of parental rights and powers
("16.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act, a local authority may resolve—

(a) that there shall vest in them the relevant parental rights and powers with respect to any child who is in their care under section 15 of this Act; or

(b) that there shall vest in a voluntary organisation which is an incorporated body, or a trust within the meaning of section 2(a) of the Trusts (Scotland) Act 1921, the relevant parental rights and powers with respect to any child who is in the care of that organisation,

if it appears to the local authority—

(i) that the parents of the child are dead and that he has no guardian; or

(ii) that there exists in respect of a parent or guardian of the child (the said parent or guardian being hereafter in this Part of this Act referred to as the person on whose account the resolution was passed) and of the circumstances specified in subsection (1A) of this section; or

(iii) that a resolution under this subsection is in force in terms of sub-paragraph (ii) above in relation to one parent of the child and that parent is, or is likely to become a member of the household comprising the child and his other parent; or

(iv) that throughout the three years preceding the passing of the resolution the child has been in the care of a local authority under section 15 of this Act, or in the care of a voluntary organisation or partly the one and partly the other.

(1A) The circumstances referred to in subparagraph (ii) of subsection (1) of this section

1299
are that the person on whose account the resolution was passed—

(a) has abandoned the child; or

(b) suffers from some permanent disability rendering him incapable of caring for the child; or

(c) while not falling within paragraph (b) of this subsection, suffers from a mental disorder (within the meaning of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960) which renders him unfit to have the care of the child; or

(d) is of such habits or mode of life as to be unfit to have the care of the child; or

(e) has so persistently failed without reasonable cause to discharge the obligations of a parent or guardian as to be unfit to have the care of the child."").

page 37, line 41, after ("13") insert ("or (Adoption of children abroad)")
page 37, line 44, leave out ("under paragraph (a)") and insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (i)")
page 38, line 1, leave out ("under paragraph (b)") and insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii)")
page 38, line 5, leave out ("under paragraph (c)") and insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (iii)"
page 38, line 9, leave out ("under paragraph (d)") and insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (iv)")
page 38, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) A local authority shall not pass a resolution under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section unless—

(a) it is satisfied that the child is not in the care of any local authority under any enactment; and

(b) it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the welfare of the child for the parental rights and powers to he vested in the voluntary organisation; and

(c) the child is living in the area of the local authority either in a residential establishment or with foster parents with whom he has been boarded out by the voluntary organisation in whose care he is; and

(d) that organisation has requested the local authority to pass the resolution.")

page 38, line 12, leave out ("paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of")
page 38, line 13, at end insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) thereof".)
page 38, line 16, after ("authority") insert ("or in the voluntary organisation, as the case may be,")
page 39, line 10, leave out ("(b), (c) or (d)")
page 39, line 10, after ("section") insert ("by virtue of circumstances specified in subparagraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) thereof")
page 39, line 23, leave out subsection (9) and insert—
("(9) A resolution under this section shall cease to have effect if—
1300

(a) the child becomes the subject of an adoption order within the meaning of Schedule (Status conferred in Scotland by adoption) to the Children Act 1975; or

(b) an order in respect of the child is made under section 13 or section (Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975; or

(c) a person is appointed, under section 4(2A) of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1925, to be the guardian of the child; or

(d) it is a resolution under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section and a resolution is passed under subsection (1) of section 16A of this Act in respect of the child.")

page 39, line 32, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
("(10) If the whereabouts of any parent or guardian of a child have remained unknown for twelve months, and throughout that period the child has been in the care of a local authority under section 15 of this Act, or in the care of a voluntary organisation, or partly the one and partly the other, then for the purposes of this section that parent or guardian shall be deemed to have abandoned the child.")
page 39, line 41, leave out ("paragraph (d)") and insert ("sub-paragraph (iv)")
page 39, line 43, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph")
page 39, line 46, leave out subsection (12).
After Clause 58, insert the following new Clause—
Duty of local authority in Scotland to assume parental rights and powers vested in a voluntary organisation.
(" . The following section is inserted after section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
"Duty of local authority to assume parental rights and powers vested in a voluntary organisation.
16A.—(1) If it appears to a local authority, having regard to the interests of the welfare of a child living within their area, the parental rights and powers in respect of whom are by virtue of a resolution under section 16(1)(b) of this Act (hereafter in this section referred to as "the earlier resolution") vested in a voluntary organization, that it is necessary that the said parental rights and powers should no longer be vested in the organization, the local authority shall resolve that the said parental rights and powers shall vest in them; and the said parental rights and powers shall vest from the date of the resolution under this subsection.
(2) The local authority shall, within seven days of passing a resolution under subsection (1) of this section, by notice in writing inform—

(a) the organisation who but for that resolution; and

(b) any person, in so far as that person's whereabouts are known to them, who, but for that resolution and the earlier resolution,

1301
would have the parental rights and powers in respect of the child, of the passing thereof.
(3) On a summary application being made for the determining of a resolution under subsection (1) of this section by a person who but for that resolution and the earlier resolution would have the parental rights and powers in respect of the child, the sheriff having jurisdiction where the applicant resides may order that—

(a) the resolution under subsection (1) of this section shall continue to have effect; or

(b) the resolution under subsection (1) of this section shall cease to have effect and that the earlier resolution shall again take effect; or

(c) the resolution under subsection (1) of this section shall cease to have effect and that the parental rights and powers in respect of the child shall again vest in the applicant; or

(d) the resolution under subsection (1) of this section shall continue to have effect, but that either for a fixed period or until the sheriff, or if the order so provides, the local authority, otherwise directs, the local authority shall allow the care of the child to he taken over by, and the child to be under the control of, the applicant.

(4) In hearing an application under subsection (3) of this section the sheriff may consider whether there was any ground for the making of the earlier resolution, and if he is satisfied that there was no ground for the making of that earlier resolution he shall make an order under subsection (3)(c) of this section.
(5) In this section "the parental rights and powers" means all the rights and powers in relation to the child which in accordance with the earlier resolution were vested in the voluntary organisation.
(6) While a resolution under subsection (1) of this section is in force with respect to a child, the child shall be deemed to have been received into and to be in the care of the local authority by virtue of section 15 of this Act, and subsections (2) to (5) of that section shall apply accordingly; except that where the earlier resolution was passed by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii), (iii) or (iv) of subsection (1) of section 16 of this Act, that part of subsection (3) of section 15 of this Act from the words "and nothing in this section shall authorize" onwards shall not apply in relation to the person who but for the earlier resolution and the resolution under subsection (1) of this section, would have the parental rights and powers in relation to the child.
(7) Subsection (9)(a), (b) and (c) of section 16, subsection (3) and (4) to (9) of section 17 and subsections (1), (2). (4) and (4A) of section 18 of this Act shall apply to a resolution under this section as they apply to a resolution under section 16(1)(a) of this Act.
(8) A notice served by a local authority under subsection (2) of this section shall not be duly served by post unless it is sent by registered post or recorded delivery service.".")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. I think your Lordships have in fact had notice of these misprints and so on in reasonable time to enable your Lordships to make certain you have a clear picture of the intentions of the Government in this matter. In addition to Amendment No. 147 I should like to move a very large number of other Amendments which all relate to the same subject, which is the assumption of parental rights in Scotland. I should like to move en bloc Nos. 147 to 164, and speak to Nos. 166, 167 and 286. It may seem a large number but we are reaching a point in the Bill when we have cleared the main matters of principle and arc now just clearing up detail.
Amendments Nos. 147 to 164, 166, 167 and 286 make provisions for Scotland as regards the vesting of parental rights in a voluntary organisation in circumstances where parental rights could be assumed by a local authority in accordance with Section 16(1) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 at present. The Scottish provisions, although differing in form from those applying to England and Wales—and we discussed these in relation to Amendments Nos. 126, 129, 305 and 306—produce the same result. I do not think—at least I hope I need not think—that I need trouble your Lordships with a detailed explanation of the differences in the Scottish approach, which I can assure the House relate essentially to matters of drafting and presentation.
It may be helpful however if I refer to the Scottish position generally and mention those aspects of the new provisions which are of particular importance for Scotland given the position of voluntary child care bodies there. Although the Scottish voluntary bodies make extensive provision for children in need of residential care in Scotland, those children who are accommodated in homes of this kind are generally, though not invariably, in the statutory care of local authorities. Thus the local authority is responsible financially, and the voluntary body is reimbursed for its expenditure in caring for the child. Decisions of a day-to-day character would be taken

1303
by the staff of the home, but decisions of major consequence for the child would be referred either to the local authority or in certain cases, where this was desirable and practical, to the parents themselves. Even if we include children boarded out under arrangements made by voluntary bodies, it remains true that only in relatively few cases are children completely in the care of the voluntary body in Scotland, with no local authority involved financially or in some other way.
Present practice apart. I am sure that the new provisions will be welcomed in Scotland as adding to the ways in which the voluntary and statutory child care agencies can co-operate in providing a child care service of the greatest practical benefit to children who, for whatever reason, are bereft of the parental care which they require. One need think only of children in long-term care where a voluntary agency might wish to have total responsibility for a child and be willing to accept financial responsibility. The differences in terminology between the present set of provisions and those for England and Wales derive largely from existing variations between the wording of Section 2 of the Children Act 1948 and Section 16 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 under which parental rights are assumed by local authorities in England and Wales and Scotland respectively. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. There are many Amendments, and it is difficult to go into them in detail. I am entirely in agreement with the general principles that the noble Lord has enunciated. The voluntary organisations in Scotland are valuable and useful and of long standing. The social work departments and agencies of local authorities are very well developed and play a great part in the lives of deprived children, children in care and adopted children. It is difficult to compare these Amendments with the Bill that was sent by your Lordships' House to the other place; a great number of changes have been made. I assume that the changes cover the reorganisation of
1304
clauses or drafting matters and that they do not represent any change in principle or in the way of dealing with the subject. No doubt the changes make matters simpler from the point of view of an Act of Parliament and do not change the way in which we handle adoption and child care.
One point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, was that adoption societies should be registered with the Secretary of State. The suggestion was very well received and I take it that it is included in the reorganisation. The suggestion was agreed to in this House, and I am quite sure that it has not been altered in the other place. Those matters apart, I approve entirely of these Amendments.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, regarding the last point the noble Baroness has raised, about the role of the Secretary of State, I think that her assumption is correct. If it is not. I will let her know. It seems to me that this is a question of bringing into harmony two different Acts—the Children Act 1948 and the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. Indeed, this is confirmed by the pigeon post! The changes deal only with the new situation of vesting rights in voluntary organisations and any changes in existing provisions; they are not fundamental changes.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 165]
After Clause 58 insert the following new clause—
Return of children taken away in breach of section 17(8) or (9) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.
(" . In section 17 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 (effect of assumption of parental rights) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (9)—
"(10) Where an offence under subsection (8) or (9) of this section has been or is believed to have been committed, a constable, or any person authorised by any court or by any justice of the peace, may take and return the child to the local authority or voluntary organisation in whom are vested the parental rights and powers relating to the child.".")
9.45 p.m.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, although it does not appear on our

1305
"signpost" I should like to speak to Amendment No. 287 together with No. 165. These two Amendments introduce new provisions relating to the recovery of children in care who have either run away or have been taken away from the place in which they are required to live. The Amendments are broadly equivalent to Amendments Nos. 140 and 141 for England and Wales. This is a Scottish matter—it is the retrieval of the child in Scotland. Amendment No. 165 inserts a provision in Section 17 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, empowering any court or justice of the peace to authorise the taking and return of any child whose parental rights have been vested in a local authority or voluntary organisation and who has been illegally removed. That is the objective of this Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, subject to correction, I think Amendment No. 287 goes with Amendment No. 172. It is about reporters to children's hearings in Scotland. I would not wish the noble Lord to feel he had to speak about it again; I only wish to preserve the opportunity for my noble friend to Teak a second time when this matter arises, if that should prove necessary.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I agree with this Amendment and this new clause in Amendment No. 165. I hope it will be successful in what it intends to do.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I say that I have just discovered that in fact Amendment No. 287 splits into two parts. The second part of No. 287, which I suggest we should tackle when we reach it, relates to the retrieval of the child and is relevant to the Amendment we have just been discussing.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 166 and 167]
Clause 59, page 40, line 7, at end insert—
1306
("c) section (Adoption of Children abroad) of the Children Act 1975 for an order vesting the parental rights and duties relating to a child.")
Page 40, line 9, after ("authority") insert ("or a voluntary organization").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 166 and 167 formally en bloc because they were discussed with Amendments 147 to 164, the assumption of parental rights in Scotland. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 168]
After Clause 59 insert the following new clause:
Safeguarding of interests of children in proceedings in Scotland relating to the assumption of parental rights
.—(1) In the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 the following section is inserted after section 18—
"18A.—(1) In any proceedings under section 16(6), 16A(3) or 18(3) of this Act, the sheriff—

(a) shall consider whether it is necessary to appoint a person for the purpose of safeguarding the interests of the child in the proceedings; and

(b) without prejudice to any existing power to appoint a person to represent the interests of the child, may, if he thinks fit, appoint a person to act for the purpose specified in paragraph (a) above.

(2) The power to make rules under section 32 of the Sheriff Court (Scotland) Act 1971 shall include power to make rules providing for—

(a) the procedure in relation to the disposal of matters arising under this section;

(b) appointment under subsection (1) of this section, the functions of a person so appointed and any right of such a person to information relating to the proceedings in question."

9.48 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this again is a formal Amendment which was discussed with Amendments Nos. 134 to 137 relating to separate representation for Scotland. I beg to move that this

1307
House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 169]
After Clause 59 insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 20 of Social Work (.Scotland) Act 1968—
(" . The following subsection is substituted for subsection (1) of section 20 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
"(1) Where a child is in the care of a local authority under any enactment, the local authority shall, in reaching any decision relating to the child, give first consideration to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child throughout his childhood and shall so far as practicable ascertain the wishes and feelings of the child regarding the decision and give due consideration to them, having regard to his age and understanding.".")
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, once again I wish to move this Amendment formally. We dealt with it earlier with Amendment No. 144. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 170]
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
Review of case of child in care in Scotland
". In the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 the following section is inserted after section 20—
"Review of case of child in care
20A.—(1) Without prejudice to their general duty under section 20(1) of this Act, it shall be the duty of a local authority who have at any time had a child in their care throughout the preceding six months and have not during that period held a review of his case, to review his case as soon as is practicable after the expiration of that period, and if a supervision requirement is in force with respect to him, the local authority shall consider in the course of the review whether to refer his case to their reporter for review of that requirement by a children's hearing.
(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) amend subsection (1) of this section by—

(i) substituting a different period for the period of six months mentioned in that subsection (or for any period which. by previous regulations under this subsection was substituted for that period);

(ii) specifying different periods in respect of the first review under that subsection occurring after a child has been taken into care, and in respect of subsequent such reviews;

(b) make provision as to the manner in which cases are to be reviewed under this section;

(c) make provision as to the considerations to which the local authority are to have regard in reviewing cases under this section."."

Lord 'WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. this is a situation in which. for once, Scotland is behind England. I beg to move this Amendment, which places a new statutory duty on local authorities in Scotland. These duties have been in existence in England since 1968. With the leave of the House, I should also like to discuss paragraph 51B in Amendment No. 294, upon which we touched earlier and which extends existing legislation in England and Wales.
Amendment No. 170 places a statutory duty on local authorities in Scotland to carry out reviews of children in their care every six months. There is already a corresponding power for England and Wales in Section 27(4) of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1969. The Amendment also enables the Secretary of State for Scotland to prescribe by regulations the manner in which local authorities should carry out these reviews and the factors that should be taken into account. This power has been taken to meet points made in another place, that where possible parents should be involved in reviews, and that the emotional needs of the child and his personal relationships should be considered, in any decision about his future—for example, whether the local authority should pass a resolution assuming parental rights and duties in respect of the child. Paragraph 51B in Amendment No. 294 enables the Secretary of State for Social Services to make similar regulations in England and Wales. The remaining paragraphs in Amendment No.

1309
294 are amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, consequential to changes made by the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
9.50 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, this appears to put considerably more work on social work committees,and I take it that the social work organisations in Scotland have been consulted about it. This is the first time I have realised what is involved here. I am strongly in favour of reviews, particularly when circumstances change so quickly, as they do in the lives of children. It is a good idea, but I hope it will be capable of being carried out by a sufficient number of social workers engaged in local authority work and voluntary organisation work in Scotland.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I gather that this was brought in at the Report stage in another place. The six-month review is in most care cases a very good thing indeed, and I welcome it. However, it is not so necessary for the long-term foster cases, where a child has settled down. I am not entirely clear about the advantages of this system over the boarding-out regulations. It does not seem to be entirely clear and I should he grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, could give a few more details on this.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is discussing a separate issue. I was just bringing to the attention of your Lordships an Amendment which places a new statutory duty on local authorities in Scotland. I was talking about the duties; not whether the duties are good or bad. This is purely a technical point. May I just say that nothing is being imposed on Scotland as a region, because the Secretary of State for Scotland will be the ultimate authority in deciding what happens.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, by leave of the House, I was talking about Amendment No. 294.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it would be fair to comment in this case that,
1310
once more, we have the effects of Amendment No. 210 to consider; that none of this will become operative in the immediate future. We have no date when it will become operative, and I take it that it will not become operative until we have the manpower to make it work satisfactorily. That is a lot better than having it on the Statute Book and its not working because of lack of manpower. We should like an assurance that the manpower will be available as soon as possible.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think this is obvious. We are in a period of stringency and retrenchment. I am certain that, with all the pressures being brought to bear on local authorities, no one will set up a vast and unnecessary organisation if he cannot be assured of the funds for it. However, in a Bill of this importance there is no harm whatever in giving Secretaries of State, be they in England or Scotland, the power to do certain things when the resources are available. I hope we are looking beyond the present slough of despond to the day when the resources will be available for creating the sort of social services we wish to see, particularly in this very important area. So we are creating the framework within which the various local authorities, voluntary associations and Secretaries of State can operate.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 171]
After Clause 59. insert the following new clause:
Restriction on removal of child from care of voluntary organisation
" . The following section is inserted after section 25 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968:
"Restriction on removal of child from care of voluntary organisation
("25A.—(1) Section 17(8) of this Act shall apply in relation to a child who is not in the care of a local authority under section 15 of this Act but who is in the care of a voluntary organisation. as it applies by virtue of subsection (3A) of the said section 15 to a child in the care of a local authority except that, in the case of a child who is not in the care of a local authority. references in subsection (3A) to a local authority shall be construed as references to the voluntary organisation in whose care the child is.
(2) For the purposes of this section. a child is in the care of a voluntary organisation if the voluntary organisation is providing accommodation for the child in a residential establishment or has boarded out the child."."
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 171. We discussed this with No. 117, and it relates to the notice of removal of children in the care of voluntary organisations.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottoom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 172.]
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause:
Power of reporters to conduct proceedings under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
"The following section is inserted after section 36 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
"Power of reporters to conduct proceedings before a sheriff
36A. The Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate may, by regulations—

(a) empower officers or any officer or class of officers appointed under section 36 of this Act, whether or not they are advocates or solicitors, to conduct before a sheriff—

(i) any proceedings which, under this Act, arc heard by the sheriff in chambers;

(ii) any application under section 37 or 40 of this Act in relation to a warrant;

(b) prescribe such requirements as they think fit as to qualifications, training or experience necessary for any officer to be so empowered."."

Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission ofthe House, I would move Amendment No. 172 and speak to Amendment No. 287. This again is taking us North of the Border. The Amendments give the Secretary of State for Scotland, jointly with the Lord Advocate, powers to deal with a difficulty which has arisen in connection with the Scottish system of children's hearings which were introduced in 1971 as broadly the equivalent to care proceedings in England and Wales. The new provision would allow the making of regulations
1312
to provide that reporters—this, I understand, is a Scottish term, nothing to do with the Press—to children's hearings, whether or not they are advocates or solicitors, should be able to conduct before the sheriff court proceedings arising from children's hearings. 11. would also allow requirements to be prescribed as to the qualifications, training or experience necessary for reporters who are given this power.
Ever since the children's hearings system began in 1971, many courts have allowed reporters who were not advocates or solicitors to appear before the sheriff in applications and appeals. In July of this year, however, the Court of Session decided on appeal that as no clear right of audience on the part of reporters had been conferred by the Social Work (Scotland) Act1968, the normal rules of audience must apply; namely, that only solicitors or advocates may appear before the sheriff. The effect of the Court of Session judgment has been that reporters may now have to take steps to instruct outside solicitors or solicitors from other local government departments to proceed with applications to the sheriff.
The Secretary of State for Scotland and the Lord Advocate propose to make early regulations under the new power allowing reporters with a year's experience to conduct the relevant proceedings before the sheriff. Concurrently with the making of these regulations, the Secretary of State and the Lord Advocate propose to enter into discussion with all the interested legal and social work bodies on a range of matters relating to the training. qualifications or experience of reporters.
If we turn to Amendment No. 287, this contains a minor consequential Amendment to Section 49(3) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, to make it clear that, notwithstanding that a reporter maybe presenting a case before the sheriff, he may still he formally examined by him. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I am very glad to read these Amendments. Ever since the hearings started and the reporters have been engaged in their work, there has been a certain amount of criticism that certain

1313
cases should go before the sheriff rather than go before the children's panel. I think this will be very valuable indeed. There may be some difficulty in getting the right kind of training, because the reporters on the whole have been selected by the sheriffs, by virtue of their knowing a certain amount about social work and about children's work, and being J.P.' s and so on, but they have not had the same sort of training as the advocate. On the other hand, I think it is most important that they should be able to take their case before the sheriff if and when it seems to be the right thing to do. I think these Amendments made in the other place, which presumably have the support of the Scottish Office, will be very valuable indeed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 173 and 174]
After Clause 59, insert the following new Clause—
Amendment to section 37 of Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
(" '. In section 37 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
(a) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (1) —
"(1A) Where a local authority receive information suggesting that a child may be in need of compulsory measures of care, they shall—

(a) cause enquiries to be made into the case unless they are satisfied that such inquiries are unnecessary; and

(b) if it appears to them that the child may be in need of compulsory measures of care, give to the reporter such information about the child as they may have been able to discover."

(b) for subsection (2) there is substituted—
"(2) A constable or any person authorised by any court or by any justice of the peace may take to a place of safety any child—

(a) in respect of whom any of the offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 has been or is believed to have been committed; or

(b) who is a member of the same household as a child in respect of whom such an offence has been or is believed to have been committed; or

(c) who is, or is likely to become, a member of the same household as a person who has committed or is believed to have committed such an offence; or

1314

(d) in respect of whom an offence under section 21(1) of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 has been or is believed to have been committed; or

(e) who is likely to be caused unnecessary suffering or serious impairment of health because there is, or is believed to be, in respect of the child, a lack of parental care,

and any child so taken to a place of safety or any child who has taken refuge in a place of safety may be detained there until arrangements can be made for him to be brought before a children's hearing under the following provisions of this Part of this Act, and, where a child is so detained, the constable or the person authorised as aforesaid or the occupier of the place of safety shall forthwith inform the reporter of the case.";
(c) in subsection (5), after "renewed" there is inserted "by a children's hearing";
(d) the following subsections are inserted after subsection (5) —
"(5A) Where a warrant has been renewed under subsection (5) of this section but it appears to the reporter—

(a) that the children's hearing will not he able to dispose of the child's case before the expiry of the period of detention required by the warrant as renewed; and

(b) that further detention of the child is necessary in the child's own interest,

the reporter may apply to the sheriff for a warrant requiring the child to be detained in a place of safety for such a period not exceeding twenty-one days as may be necessary and the sheriff may issue such a warrant if he is satisfied that such detention is necessary in the child's own interest.
(5B) On cause shown a warrant authorising detention under subsection (5A) of this section may be renewed by the sheriff on one occasion only, for the period mentioned in that subsection on the application of the reporter." ' ")
After Clause 59, insert the following new Clause—
Amendment to section 40 of Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968
(" '. In section 40 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968—
(a) for subsection (7) there is substituted—
" (7) Where a children's hearing before whom a child is brought are unable to dispose of his case and—

(a) have reason to believe that the child may not attend at any hearing of his case, or at any proceedings arising from the case, or may fail to comply with a requirement under section 43(4) of this Act; or

(b) are satisfied that detention of the child is necessary in his own interest,

1315
they may issue a warrant requiring the child to be detained in a place of safety for such a period not exceeding twenty-one days as may be necessary.";

(b) for subsection (8) there is substituted—
"(8) On cause shown a warrant authorising detention under subsection (7) of this section may he renewed by a children's hearing on one occasion only, for the period mentioned in that subsection on the application of the reporter.";
(c) the following subsections are inserted after subsection (8)—
"(8A) Where a warrant has been renewed under subsection (8) of this section but it appears to the reporter—

(a) that the children's hearing will not be able to dispose of the child's case before the expiry of the period of detention required by the warrant as renewed; and

(b) that further detention of the child is necessary in the child's own interest,

the reporter may apply to the sheriff for a warrant requiring the child to be detained in a place of safety for such a period not exceeding twenty-one days as may be necessary, and the sheriff may issue such a warrant if he is satisfied that such detention is necessary in the child's own interest.
(8B) On cause shown, a warrant authorising detention under subsection (8A) of this section may be renewed by the sheriff on one occasion only, for the period mentioned in that subsection on the application of the reporter.".'")
10.0 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 173 and 174 together. They are Amendments dealing with Scottish matters which are separate from the care provisions in Part III of the Bill relative to England and Wales. These Amendments have three main purposes. They place on local authorities in Scotland a specific duty under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 to make investigation on receipt of any information suggesting that a child may be in need of compulsory measures of care, and to pass on the results of their investigations to the reporter to the children's panel if, in their view, there are grounds for considering formal measures of care for the child.
Secondly, they extend the circumstances in which children may be taken to a place of safety under the emergency procedure provided by Section 37(2) of the Social Work Act to provide additional safeguards for children who are known or believed to be victims of child abuse in
1316
certain specific circumstances or are at risk of such abuse. Thirdly, the Amendments extend the period for which such children may be detained temporarily in a place of safety until their case can be disposed of by a children's hearing. This extension gives the possibility of a child being detained pending final consideration of his case for 84 days, but any extension beyond 42 days would be at the hand of the sheriff on application by the reporter that further detention was necessary in the child's own interests.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. — (Lord Winterhottotn.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord said, and to agree to these Amendments. They are admirable.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 174A–179]
Clause 60, page 40, line 15, leave out ("and any future enactment").
Page 40, line 40, at end insert—
("(5A) Subsections (4) and (5) apply in relation to the dissolution of a body corporate as they apply in relation to the death of an individual.")
Clause 61, page 41, line 1, leave out ("and any future enactment").
Clause 62, page 41, line 16, leave out ("and any future enactment").
After Clause 63—
Amendment of Interpretation Act 1889
(" .—(1) In the Interpretation Act 1889 after section 19 there is inserted the following section—
"Meaning of expressions relating to children
19A. In any Act passed after the Children Act 1975, unless the contrary intention appears—

(a) the expression "the parental rights and duties",

(b) the expression "legal custody" (as respects a child), and

(c) references to the person with whom a child has his home,

shall be construed in accordance with Part IV of the Children Act 1975.
(2) This section does not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.".")
Clause 64, leave out Clause 64.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to take en bloc the Amendments to Clauses 60 to 64 of the Bill which were accepted in another place; that is,

1317
Amendments Nos. 174A, 175, 176, 177, 178 and 179. Amendment No. 175 is consequential on the other Amendments already moved to the Bill enabling voluntary organisations which are incorporated bodies to hold parental rights and duties. Amendment No. 179 leaves out Clause 64. When the Bill was introduced, it was thought that it would prove helpful to provide a definition of the term "child" which would apply to legislation generally and to replace the term "minor" where it is used in existing legislation. On further reflection, the Government have concluded that there are more disadvantages than advantages in this approach, the main disadvantage being that a general interpretation provision tucked away in legislation with a limited purpose might lead to confusion.
Much the same reasoning lies behind the Amendments to Clauses 60, 61 and 62, which delete from the Bill references to "any future enactment". These Amendments are consequential to the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 178, which inserts into the Interpretation Act 1889 references to the definitions contained in Clauses 60, 61 and 62. These provisions have the support of the Law Society and the Association of British Adoption Agencies. Their purpose is to make readily accessible the definitions of the commonly used legal concepts which are now embodied in the Bill, while at the same time avoiding the need for their repetition whenever the terms are used in future legislation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 180 and 181]
After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:
Procedure in guardianship proceedings
.—(1) The following subsections are substituted for subsections (2) and (3) of section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973:—
"(2) A report made in pursuance of subsection (1) above to a magistrates' court shall be made to the court at a hearing of the application unless it is in writing in which case—

(a) a copy of the report shall be given to each party to the proceedings or to his counsel or solicitor either before or during a hearing of the application; and

1318

(b) if the court thinks fit, the report, or such part of the report as the court requires, shall be read aloud at a hearing of the application.

(3) A magistrates'court may and, if requested to do so at the hearing by a party to the proceedings or his counsel or solicitor, shall, require the officer by whom the report was made to give evidence of or with respect to the matters referred to in the report and if the officer gives such evidence, any party to the proceedings may give or call evidence with respect to any such matter or any matter referred to in the officer's evidence.
(3A) A magistrates' court may take account of—

(a) any statement contained in a report made at a hearing of the application or of which copies have been given to the parties or their representatives in accordance with subsection (2)(a) above; and

(b) any evidence given by the officer under subsection (3) above,

in so far as the statement or evidence is, in the opinion of the court, relevant to the application notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the contrary."
(2) The following subsection is added after subsection (5) of the said section 6—
"(6) A single justice may request a report under subsection (1) of this section before the hearing of the application, but in such a case the report shall be made to the court which hears the application, and the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply accordingly."."
After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:
Procedure in matrimonial proceedings
".—(1) The following subsections are substituted for subsections (3) and (4) of section 4 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960:—
'(3) A report made in pursuance of subsection (2) of this section shall be made to the court at a hearing of the complaint unless it is in writing in which case—

(a) a copy of the report shall be given to each party to the proceedings or to his counsel or solicitor either before or during a hearing of the complaint; and

(b) if the court thinks fit, the report, or such parts of the report as the court requires, shall be read aloud at a hearing of the complaint.

(4) The court may and, if requested to do so at the hearing by a party to the proceedings or his counsel or solicitor, shall, require the officer by whom the report was made to give evidence on or with respect to the matters referred to in the report and if the officer gives such evidence, any party to the proceedings may give or call evidence on or with respect to any such matter or any matter referred to in the officer's evidence.
(4A) Subject to the next following subsection, the court may take account of—

1319

(a) any statement contained in a report made at a hearing of the complaint or of which copies have been given to the parties or their representatives in accordance with subsection (3)(a) of this section; and

(b) any evidence given by the officer under subsection (4) of this section; in so far as the statement of evidence relates to the matters specified by the court under subsection (2) of this section, notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the country.'

(2) In subsection (5) of the said section 4, for 'subsection (4)' there is substituted' subsections (4) and (4A).'."
10.5 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 which relate to the procedure in matrimonial and guardianship proceedings. I do not think I need say much about these two new clauses. One replaces part of Section 6 of the Guardianship Act 1973, and the other replaces part of Section 4 of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act 1960. This will improve and simplify the procedure in magistrates' courts for dealing with welfare reports made to courts in relation to children, where the court is considering to whom, in the best interests of the child, custody should be given. The procedural changes which are embodied in these new clauses have the support of the President of the Family Division of the High Court and of the Justices' Clerks' Society. A further welcome change in the procedure was introduced on Report in another place when a subsection was added to the first of the two clauses enabling a single justice of the peace to call for a report before the hearing of an application. This provision will help to avoid unnecessary delays in the reaching of a decision on the main issue as to custody. The conferring of the power on a single justice will enable the power to be exercised also by a justices' clerk, provided that rules to that effect are later made under Section 5 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1968. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, can the noble Lord clarify a point? Is this to be done in open court
1320
or in the normal closed court? As the reports are, in certain circumstances, to be read out, I suggest that it would be preferable if this were clone in closed court.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is something about which I am totally ignorant and perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to send her the answer. I am told, however, that the normal domestic court procedure will be followed.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 182–184]
Clause 66, page 43, line 12, leave out from ("person") to ("or") in line 14.
Line 35, at end insert—
(" (2) On the re-registration of a birth under this section—

(a) the registrar and the mother shall sign the register;

(b) in the case of a request under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of this section, the other person making the request shall also sign the register; and

(c) if the re-registration takes place more than three months after the birth, the superintendent registrar shall also sign the register.")

Page 44, line 11, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) the person or persons who sign the statement shall be deemed to have signed the register as required by subsection (2) of that section." ".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 182 to 184, all of which are drafting Amendments to improve the wording of Clause 66. Amendment No. 183 adds a subsection to the new Section 10A of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 introduced by Clause 66, to make explicit by whom the birth register shall be signed on the re-registration of a birth under any one of the three methods of re-registration set out in the new section; this allows for the simplification of the wording of paragraph (a) of Section 10A, effected by Amendment No. 182. Amendment No. 184 is simply consequential.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 185–187]
After Clause 67, insert the following new Clause—
Visiting of foster children
(".—(1) In section I of the Children Act 1958 (visiting of foster children), the words "so far as appears to the authority to be appropriate" shall cease to have effect, and for the words "from time to time" there are substituted the words "in accordance with regulations made under section 2A of this Act".
(1A) In section 1A of the Children Act 1958 (visiting of foster children in Scotland) the words "where the local authority consider such a course to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of this section," shall cease to have effect, and for the words "from time to time" there are substituted the words "in accordance with regulations made under section 2A of this Act.
(2) The following section is inserted in the said Act after section 2—
"Visits to foster children
2A.—(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations requiring foster children in a local authority's area to he visited by an officer of the local authority on specified occasions or within specified periods of time.
(2) Every person who is maintaining a foster child within the area of a local authority on the date on which regulations made under subsection (1) of this section come into operation, and who before that date has not given notice in respect of the child to the local authority under section 3(1) of this Act, shall within eight weeks of that date given written notice that he is maintaining the child to the local authority.
(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(3) In section 3 of the said Act as it applies to England and Wales (duty of persons maintaining foster children to notify local authority) —

(a) in subsection (5A). for the words "one or more foster children" there are substituted the words "a foster child", and for the words "foster children" and "any foster children" there are substituted the words "that foster child";

(b) in subsection (5B) for the words "foster children"there are substituted the words "a foster child", and for the words "any of them as a" there is substituted the word "that"; and

(c)'

the following subsection is added at the end—
"(8) Subsection (2A) of this section shall cease to have effect on the date regulations made under section 2A of this Act come into operation.".")
After Clause 67, insert the following new Clause—
Notification by parents
(" .—(1) The following section is inserted in the Children Act 1958 after section 3—
"Notification by parents
3A.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for requiring parents whose children are or are going to be maintained as foster children to give to the local authority for the area where the children are, or are going to be, living as foster children, such information about the fostering as may be specified in the regulations.
(2) Regulations under this section—

(a) may include such incidental and supplementary provisions as the Secretary of State thinks lit;

(b) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

(2) In section 14 of the said Act (offences), in subsection (1)(a), after the words "this Part of this Act" there are inserted the words " or under regulations made under section 3A of this Act".")
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
Advertisements relating to foster children
(" . —(1) In section 37 of the Children Act 1958 the following subsections are inserted after subsection (1)—
"(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit the parent or guardian of any child from publishing or causing to be published an advertisement indicating that foster parents are sought for the child.
(1B) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit—

(a) a member of a class of persons specified in the regulations, or

(b) a person other than a person, or other than a member of a class of persons, specified in the regulations,

from publishing or causing to be published any advertisement indicating that he is willing to undertake, or to arrange for, the care and maintenance of a child.
(1C) Regulations made under this section—

(a) may make different provision for different cases or classes of cases, and

(b) may exclude certain cases or classes of cases, and shall be made by statutory instrument,

subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
(2) In subsection (2) of the said section 37, after the words "this section" there are inserted the words "or of regulations made under this section".")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. These Amendments enable the

1323
Government to make regulations to prohibit advertising in the private fostering field and to strengthen local authority control and supervision of private fostering. The regulations may lay down visiting standards for local authorities and require parents, as well as foster parents, to give information about the children to the local authority. These provisions reflect concern expressed in this House, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and elsewhere, about the situation of some privately fostered children.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: I should like briefly to draw your Lordships'attention to two correlated aspects of the Amendments, although they cover a great deal of ground. I have had expressions of concern voiced to me about the intention to suppress advertising in relation to private fostering. These were on two grounds. The first is that if there is no public advertising the system will be driven even further underground and that by making it more furtive it will become less desirable. I recognise that the part of Amendment No. 185 which constitutes subsection (2)(2) of the new clause is designed to overcome this to some extent and if that subsection, which begins
"Every person who is maintaining a foster child within the area of a local authority on the date on which regulations made under subsection (1) of this section come into operation…shall…give written notice that he is maintaining the child to the local authority",
is complied with in every case, of course there will be much less concern. But there appears to be absolutely no means of seeing that every case is registered or, indeed, of knowing whether or not every case is registered. It has been represented to me that there are in some districts informal arrangements between the local Press and the social services whereby a galley proof of such advertisements is submitted in advance to the social services so that they have immediate information as to where fostering is or is about to take place. That enables them to supervise it as they cannot do if they do not know where it is taking place.
Clearly, we are not going to make a great fuss about this at the moment. We
1324
recognise that it is important that the Minister should be able to use his power to make different regulations for different areas in this respect, if only because, for instance, Kent, with one-fortieth of the population, has one-tenth of the coloured foster children in that population. The problems differ in scale from one part of the country to another. However, I ask that, during the first three-year period, the Minister should take such steps as are possible to examine the efficiency with which regulations which he makes are working. There has been a great deal of concern in this House and in another place about the perils of private fostering. Those perils would be reduced under proper supervision and we have some reservations as to whether banning advertisements, which, though they promote private fostering, also reveal it, is the right way to tackle the problem.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord if he could clarify this. I cannot see the word "private" in Amendment No. 187 and I come from an area where there is a great difficulty in finding foster parents. I hear continually on Radio Leeds of fostering being asked for, and the other day when I was driving along I heard children themselves asking to be fostered and saying that they did not enjoy living in local authority homes. I wonder whether this Amendment covers children in local authority homes who are wanting foster homes.
Also, it might be that the arranging of private fostering can be done better by persons of a certain race and creed and who eat different foods than it can be done by members of local authorities. I should like to ask the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was asking, but I should also like to know whether Amendment No. 187 relates not only 10 private fostering but also to local authority fostering.
I want to re-emphasise the great difficulty that local authorities are having in finding foster parents and a point which I nearly forgot is the great difficulty of finding foster homes for handicapped children. We all know that children do very much better in a home of their own than they do in a local authority home where the staff is always changing and where the social workers who are dealing

1325
with them also change so that there is no continuity. Therefore, I hope that the Government will look very carefully at this because I should hate to see children having to remain in institutional homes when they might be able to get a foster home. Again, advertising, if it is underground, may go on all the same, as do other things underground.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, in agreeing to this Amendment we are merely giving the power to the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit advertising in the private fostering field. Amendment No. 187 refers to the Children Act 1958, which apparently relates to private fostering. Again, this is merely giving the Secretary of State power. At this stage we cannot forecast when it will be possible to introduce regulations under these provisions. The timetable will be a matter for discussion between the Secretary of State and representatives of local authority associations in the light of the availability of financial and human resources. If noble Lords and noble Baronesses and other individuals and organisations have strong views on this, there is still time to bring them to the notice of the local authority and hence to the Secretary of State. This is not a desire to act but simply to give the power to act.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, bearing in mind that we are speaking to three or four Amendments, I should like to intervene again to say that we recognise that this is an Order-making power and that there are various facets of it. But it is important that consideration be given to the human resources available for detecting children in this position, when it is being decided when advertising should be banned. It would be a great pity to destroy all former traces of the exchanges before any detective agency, as it were, could be put into the field to find them by some other means.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 188 and 189]
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
Inquiries in England and Wales
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may cause an inquiry to be held into any matter relating to—
1326

(a) the functions of the social services committee of a local authority, in so far as those functions relate to children;

(b) the functions of an adoption agency;

(c) the functions of a voluntary organisation in so far as those functions relate to voluntary homes;

(d) a home maintained by the Secretary of State for the accommodation of children who are in the care of local authorities and are in need of the particular facilities and services provided in the home;

(e) the detention of a child under section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

(2) The Secretary of State may, before an inquiry is commenced, direct that it shall be held in private, but where no such direction has been given, the person holding the inquiry may if he thinks fit hold it or any part of it in private.
(3) Subsections (2) to (5) of section 250 of the Local Government Act 1972 (powers in relation to local inquiries) shall apply in relation to an inquiry under this section as they apply in relation to a local inquiry under that section.
(4) In this section—
"functions" includes powers and duties which a person has otherwise than by virtue of any enactment;
"voluntary home" means a home or other institution for the boarding, care and maintenance of poor children which is supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, but does not include a mental nursing home or residential home for mentally disordered persons within the meaning of Part III of the Mental Health Act 1959.
(5) This section does not apply to Scotland.")
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—
Inquiries in Scotland
(" .—(1) In Scotland the Secretary of State may cause an enquiry to be held into any matter relating to—

(a) the functions of a local authority under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1963 in so far as the matter relates to children;

(b) the functions of a local authority under the enactments specified in paragraph (a) of section 1(4) and paragraphs (b) to (e) and (h) of section 2(2) of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968;

(c) the functions of an adoption society

(d) the functions of a voluntary organisation in so far as those functions relate to establishments to which sections 61 to 68 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 apply and in so far as the matter relates to children; or

(e) the detention of a child under—

(i) section 57 or 58A of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937; or

(ii) section 206 or 413 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975.

(2) The Secretary of State may, before an inquiry is commenced, direct that it shall be held in private, but where no such direction has been given, the person holding the inquiry may if he thinks fit hold it or any part of it in private.
(3) Subsections (2) to (8) of section 210 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 (powers in relation to local inquiries) shall apply in relation to an inquiry under this section as they apply in relation to a local inquiry under that section.
(4) In this section "functions" includes powers and duties exercisable otherwise than by virtue of any enactment".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 188 and 189. Amendment No. 189 relates to Scotland. One of the issues to which the Maria Colwell tragedy drew attention was the absence of any statutory power under children's legislation for the Secretary of State for Social Services to cause an inquiry to be held. The absence of statutory powers could have caused difficulties had there been a reluctance on the part of those who witnessed the tragic events with which the inquiry was concerned to come forward, or a refusal to co-operate. It seems right therefore that we should take the opportunity afforded by the Children Bill to till this gap in children's legislation with a view to placing future inquiries of this kind on a more satisfactory footing. But the Government would expect to use this new power very sparingly. I beg to move.
Moved. That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, we welcome the appearance of these powers in the Bill. We hope that the occasion for their use will be rare, and when they are used we shall look with interest to see how well they work.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 190–201]
Clause 68, page 44, line 29, leave out from ("court") to ("rules") in line 31 and insert ("prescribed by".)
Clause 68, page 44, line 33, leave out first ("the") and insert ("a".)
Clause 68, page 44, line 35, leave out ("any") and insert ("a")
Clause 68, page 44, line 29 leave out line 40 and insert—
("(b) the Sheriff court of the Sheriffdom within which the child is").
Page 45, line 8, at beginning insert ("(b)".)
Page 45, line 9, at end insert—
(" (5A) In the case of an order under section (Adoption of Children abroad), paragraph (d) of subsection (2) does not apply".)
Page 45, line 10, leave out ("does not apply") and insert ("applies".)
Page 45, line 12, leave out ("but") and insert ("whether or not the child is in England or Wales and".)
Page 45, line 13, after ("are") insert ("also".)
Page 45, line 14, at end insert ("and where that court is a magistrates' court, any other magistrates' court acting for the same petty session area;".)
Page 45, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) the county court within whose district the applicant is;
(bb) a magistrates' court within whose area the applicant is;".)
Page 45, line 22, at end add—
("(6A) Subsection (2) does not apply in the case of an application under section (Return of child taken away in breach of sections 34 or 34 A of 1958 Act) or (Return of child taken away in breach of section 37) but for the purposes of such an application the following are authorised courts—

(a) if there is pending in respect of the child an application for an adoption order or an order under section 13 or a custodianship order, the court in which that application is pending;

(b) in any other case, the High Court, the county court within whose district the applicant lives and the magistrates' court within whose area the applicant lives.

(6B) Subsections (3) and (6A) do not apply in the case of an application under section (Return of child taken in breach of sections 34 or 34 A of 1958 Act); in Scotland but for the purposes of such an application the following are authorised courts—

(a) if there is pending in respect of the child an application for—

(i) an adoption order; or

(ii) an order under section 13,

the court in which that application is pending;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the Court of Session;

(ii) the sheriff court of the sheriffdom within which the applicant resides".)

Lord WINTERBOTTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 190 to 201, which I should like to

1329
take en bloc. While doing so, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 205. This is a massive "ad hocery" to which I hope the House will agree. Despite the enormous length, I need say little more about these Amendments. They are all designed to make things easier for the persons who bring proceedings under the new legislation. Thus, the Amendments to subsection (6) of the clause considerably extend the courts to which application can be made for an Order under Clauses 31, 32 or 34 of the Bill.
I might perhaps mention in this connection Amendment No. 205, to Clause 74 of the Bill, which inserts into it a definition of the term "area". This Amendment was carried into the Bill on Report. Its purpose is quite simply to remove ambiguity as to the meaning of the term "area" where it occurs in Clause 68 of the Bill, but I think I should point out to your Lordships that it also meets the objective of Recommendation 65 of the Houghton Committee Report and a point which was made recently by the ABAA. The Committee noted in paragraph 264 of their Report the reluctance of some adopters to apply in the local magistrates' court because they feared that private information about them would be made known locally, albeit in confidence. By defining "area" as the commission area—which, outside Greater London, is the County—an authorised court under the provisions of Clause 68(2)(d) may be any magistrates' court within the commission area and need not be the local magistrates' court. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 202]
Clause 71, page 46, leave out lines 19 to 22 and insert-—
"(a) guardians ad litem and reporting officers may in accordance with rules or rules of court be appointed for the purposes of—

(i) section 19 of this Act;

(ii) section 32B of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969;

(iii) section 4B of the Children Act 1948;

1330
(b) persons may be appointed for the purposes of section 18A or 34A of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 125 and 132, which provide that the appointment of an independent representative is not mandatory in all court proceedings involving children. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. — (Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 203]
After Clause 72, insert the following Clause—
Procedure for periodic review of operation of Act
(" . The Secretary of State shall, within three years of the first of the dates appointed by order by the Secretary of State under section (Amendments, repeals, commencement and transitory provisions) (2) and, thereafter, every five years lay before Parliament a report on the operation of those ssctions of the Act which are in force at that time; and the Secretary of State shall institute such research as is necessary to provide the information for these reports".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is an important Amendment which we have touched on from time to time during the passage of this Bill. None of us believes that we are the repositories of all wisdom, that we get the right decisions at all points of drafting of a new Bill. Therefore, the powers of periodic review are introduced under this new clause. It requires the Secretary of State, within three years of the first appointed day made under subsection (2) of the new clause introduced by Amendment No. 210, and thereafter every five years, to lay before Parliament a report on the operation of those sections of the Act in force at that time. The Secretary of State will have a duty to institute such research as is necessary to provide the necessary information.
This will provide Parliament with an opportunity to consider the rate of progress of implementation of the Bill, particularly the development of a comprehensive adoption service, and, in due course, the effectiveness or otherwise of the new concepts of "time limits", "freeing for adoption" and "custodianship orders". The Bill already provides for

1331
reports on schemes for payments to adopters. An important advantage of the requirement to make progress reports is that it will encourage local authorities to improve the standard of their adoption services. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell discussed last Friday the timing of the implementation of the Bill, and in view of the lateness of the hour I hope your Lordships will agree that we need not go over the same ground again. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask one question? These reviews, I hope, apply to Scotland as well as to England?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, without exact knowledge, I cannot believe it would be otherwise.
Lord ELTON: My Lords. I should like to give a hearty welcome to this Amendment to the Bill, which originated with our friends in another place and which is an extremely useful, built-in safety system—and a rather unusual one. In view of the importance of the legislation, its complexity and the sensitivity of the area in which it is to have effect, to be certain that there will be pressure for Parliamentary time for considering, at regular intervals in the future its success or failure is, I think we must accept, a very considerable advance.
There will be a number of matters we shall wish to review and had this been an earlier hour I should have been tempted to enumerate them. We have already touched on them seriatim and I will not weary your Lordships by saying now what they can, but probably will not, refresh their memories about by reading Hansard tomorrow.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 204]
Clause 73, page 46, line 38, leave out from "case" to end of line 40.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amend-
1332
ment No. 204. With the agreement of your Lordships I shall move this Amendment on its own, although it is consequential on Amendment No. 210. Amendment No. 204 removes from Clause 73 the provision that regulations or orders made under the Bill may contain such transitional provisions as the Secretary of State thinks fit. This is now covered by Amendment No. 210 which we shall be discussing shortly.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 205]
Clause 74, page 47, line 9, at end insert—
(" " area", in relation to a magistrates' court, means the commission area (within the meaning of section 1 of the Administration of Justice Act 1973) for which the court is appointed;
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House does agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 205. It was discussed with Amendments Nos. 190 to 201.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 206 to 209]
Clause 74, page 47, line 14, leave out ("any British territory outside Great Britain") and insert ("Northern Ireland or any British territory outside the United Kingdom;".)
Clause 74, page 47, line 14, leave out lines 16 to 19.
Clause 74, page 47, line 14, line 26, at end insert—
(" " child", except where used to express a relationship, means a person who has not attained the age of 18;".)
Page 4S, leave out lines 28 and 29.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 206 to 209. With the leave of the House I should like to move these en bloc as they all relate to the interpretation of the Bill. They are purely interpretation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 210–211]
After Clause 74, insert the following new clause—
Amendments, repeals, commencement and transitory provisions
(" .—(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section—

(a) the enactments specified in Schedule 3 shall have effect subject to the amendments specified in that Schedule (being minor amendments or amendments consequential on the preceding provisions of this Act), and

(b) the enactments specified in Schedule 4 are repealed to the extent shown in column 3 of that Schedule.

(2) This Act, except the provisions specified in subsections (3) and (4), shall come into force on such date as the Secretary of State may my order appoint and different dates may be appointed for, or for different purposes of, different provisions.
(3) Sections (Grants in respect of secure accommodation) (Grants in respect of secure accommodation for children), this section, section 76, (Power of reporters to conduct proceedings under Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968) and paragraph 42A of Schedule 3, shall conic into force on the passing of this Act.
(4) The following provisions of this Act shall come into force on 1st January 1976—

(a) sections 2, 7(9) and (10), 12, 52, (Amendment of section 37 of Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968) to (Procedure in matrimonial proceedings), 67, 68, (Inquiries), (Inquiries in Scotland) and 71 to 74;

(b) Schedules I and (Status conferred in Scotland by adoption);

(c) In Schedule 3, paragraphs Al, A2, 1, 2, 3A, 5, 6, 8(6), 9A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E, 11(1), (2) and (4), 12 to 16, 20(b), 22, 24B, 25(aa), 25A, 26(b), 27, 28(c), (d), and (e), 29, 33, 38, 39, 40(a), 41(f)(ii), and (g)(ii), 41B, 42, 42B, 42D, 44, 46, 47, 49 to 51A, 54(3), 54B, 55, 58 and 61.

(d) Parts I, II and III of Schedule 4.

(5) Until the date appointed under subsection (I) for sections 3 to 6, in this Act and in the 1958 Act "adoption agency" means a local authority or a registered adoption society within the meaning of the 1958 Act.
(6) Until the date so appointed for section II, section 5(1) of the 1958 Act shall, in relation to an application made after 31st December 1975 for an adoption order, have effect with the addition at the end of paragraph (b) of the following words" or
(c) has seriously ill-treated the child and that (whether because of the ill-treatment or for other reasons) the rehabilitation of the child within the household of that person is unlikely."
(7) Until the date so appointed for section 17, section 21A of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 shall have effect as if for references to section (Adoption of children
1334
abroad) there were substituted references to section 53 of the 1958 Act.
(8) An order under subsection (1) may make such transitional provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient in connection with the provisions thereby brought into force, including such adaptations of those provisions or any provision of this Act then in force or any provision of the 1958 Act as appears to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the partial operation of this Act."
Clause 75, leave out Clause 75.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 210 and 211 which, with the permission of the House, I will move together. Amendment No. 210 was introduced into the Bill in another place at Committee stage to group all powers connected with the commencement of the Bill and transitional matters in one clause. I do not propose to discuss the timing of implementation now. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell discussed this with your Lordships last Friday and, as he explained, it is a matter for continuing discussion with the local authority associations. The new clause gives the Secretary of State the most flexible power possible to bring into operation by order individual sections or parts of the Act either by themselves or in combination with other sections as and when resources become available. As I say, these timetables are contained in Amendment No. 210. It is long; but it deals with a simple issue.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.-(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the issue may be simple, but the method of dealing with it is not. I share the noble Lord's anxiety to conclude this evening's proceedings. But I cannot do so without a final comment on the general character of the Bill as it is encapsulated in this Amendment. Although your Lordships will not have had the opportunity of going through it line by line, you will be aware that almost the only provision which will immediately come into force is that which enables grants to be made in place of loans for the building of secure places which we have discussed and which does not involve any new money. In subsection (4) there is a further group of provisions which, at slightly more than cursory examination,

1335
would appear to be largely a restatement of existing legislation. The rest of the Bill is simply an expression of an aspiration; it is a declaration of intent and will remain as such until the moment when, clause by clause, provision by provision, the Secretary of State sets the machine in motion. The noble Lord, Lord Winterbotom, rightly said he could not say when this will be, and the noble Lord rightly said, this depends on when resources are available to make it effective.
We on this side of the House wish it to be borne in mind that here is something which has been thought so much of a priority that great pressure has been put on this House to put this measure on the Statute Book before it should lapse and have to be brought in again. If it has such priority in terms of legislation, it should also have priority in terms of efficacy. I am certain that the character of the noble Lord's honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State, is such that he will share the intentions we all have that the most important and effective parts of this Bill shall be put into action as soon as may be. We on this side should like to express our enthusiasm for what has been achieved, and the interest with which we shall watch it coming into action. Our anxiety is that it should not be lost sight of among the more political pressures and demands upon the funds which are admittedly short, but which must eventually be secured.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend has said in regard to Scotland, about which I have been speaking tonight. There will be certain things which will be expensive and they, no doubt, will be postponed. There is much in this Bill which does not require money but only requires reorganisation. It requires the will to do the job; it requires a certain change in some of the administration. All of this could be put into effect quickly. Since we all agree that this is not a Party political Bill in any sense, but a social work Bill which we are all anxious to help and put into effect, those parts of the Bill which are not involved in any great expense but only in reorganisation, replanning, changes of function of some people, and so on, should be put into effect as quickly as possible. I shall
1336
be deeply disappointed if, in a year or 18 months' time, half this Bill as it affects Scotland is not already in effect.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, having been on the fringe of this Bill at its beginning and in the heart of it now. I know from the measure of commitment among noble Lords and honourable Members of another place that the Government of the day, of whichever complexion, will not be allowed to let the intentions behind this Bill pass without due attention. There will be too many concerned people prodding them to allow them to sleep comfortably or cower behind the excuse that resources of manpower or money are not available. I agree with the noble Baroness, if we were efficient there are many resources we could use which we do not at the moment use.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 212 and 213]
Clause 76, page 49, line 22. after "Act", insert "except 'section (Extension of powers under section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969)' paragraphs 6A, 6B and 47 of Schedule 3 and Schedule 4 in so far as it repeals the words 'or adoption ' in section 9(5) of the Adoption Act 1968 and the references in that Act to section 19 of the Adoption Act 1958,".
Clause 76, page 49, line 27, at end insert—
"(3) Subsection (1) of section (Extension of powers under section 32 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969) extends to the Channel Islands.
10.32 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 212 and 213 en bloc. These Amendments involve minor changes to the extent provisions of the Bill contained in Clause 76. I stress they are minor and, for this reason, I hope your Lordships will accept them. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbouom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 214 to 247]
Schedule 1, page 50, line 10, after ("an") insert ("adoption").
Schedule 1, page 50, line 14, leave out ("or").
Schedule 1, page 50, line 16, at end insert (" or
(e) which is an adoption recognised by the law of England and Wales, and effected under the law of any other country.")
Schedule 1, page 50, leave out lines 30 and 31.
Schedule 1, page 50, line 32, leave out from beginning to ("before") in line 33 and insert (" 'Existing', in relation to any enactment or other instrument, means one passed or made.")
Schedule 1, page 50, line 36, leave out ("executed") and insert ("made").
Schedule 1, page 50, line 36, at end insert—
("Dispositions of property
1A.—(1) In this Schedule—
"disposition" includes the conferring of a power of appointment and any other disposition of an interest in or right over property;
"power of appointment" includes any discretionary power to transfer a beneficial interest in property without the furnishing of valuable consideration.
(2) This Schedule applies to an oral disposition of property as if contained in an instrument made when the disposition was made.")
page 51, line 21, leave out ("executed") and insert ("passed or made").
page 51, line 22, leave out from ("indication") to end of line 24.
page 51, line 43, leave out ("operation on ") and insert ("application to").
page 52, line 2, after ("of") insert (" provisions containing").
page 52, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (3) and insert—
(" '(3) For the purposes of this paragraph, and of paragraph 6, provisions of the law of inestate 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".)
page 52, line 12, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
page 52, line 22, at end insert—
(" (3A) Examples of phrases in wills on which sub-paragraph (3) can operate are—

1. Children of A "living at my death or born afterwards".

2. Children of A "living at my death or born afterwards before any one of such children for the time being in existence attains a vested interest, and who attain the age of 21 years".

3. As in example 1 to 2, butreferring to grandchildren of A, instead of children of A.

4. A for life "until he has a child", and then to his child or children.

Note: Sub-paragraph (3) will not affect the reference to the age of 21 years in example 2.")
page 52, line 23, leave out from ("not") to end of line 24 and insert ("prejudice any interest vested in possession in the adopted child before the adoption, or any interest expectant (whether immediately or not) upon an interest so vested.")
page 52, line 23 leave out lines 35 to 40.
page 52, line 44, at end insert—
("(1A) Paragraph 2 does not apply for the purposes of any provision of

(a) the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965,

(b) the Immigration Act 1971,

(c) any instrument having effect under an enactment within paragraph (a) or (b), or

(d) any other provision of the law for the time being in force which determines citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

(1AA) Paragraph 2 shall not prevent a person being treated as a near relative of a deceased person for the purposes of section 32 of the Social Security Act 1975 (payment of death grant), if apart from paragraph 2 he would be so treated.

(1B) Paragraph 2 does not apply for the purposes of section 70(3)(b) or section 73(2) of the Social Security Act 1975 (payment of industrial death benefit to or in respect of an illegitimate child of the deceased and the child's mother).

(1C) Subject to regulations made under section 72 of the Social Security Act 1975 (entitlement of certain relatives of deceased to industrial death benefit), paragraph 2 shall not affect the entitlement to an industrial death benefit of a person who would, apart from paragraph 2, be treated as a relative of a deceased person for the purposes of the said section 72.")

Page 53, leave out lines 1 to 6.
Page 53, line 6, at end insert—
("Pensions
7A. Paragraph 2(2) does not affect entitlement to a pension which is payable to or for the benefit of a child and is in payment at the time of his adoption.".)
Page 53, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (1).
Page 53, line 10. leave out ("an illegitimate") and insert ("a")
Page 53, line 16, at end insert—
("Insurance
9A. Where a child is adopted whose natural parent has effected an insurance with a friendly society or a collecting society or an industrial insurance company for the payment on the death of the child of money for funeral expenses, the rights and liabilities under the policy shall by virtue of the adoption be transferred to the adoptive parents who shall for the purposes of the enactments relating to such societies and companies be treated as the person who took out the policy.")
Page 53, line 20, leave out paragraph 10.
Page 53, line 42, at end iinsert—
(" (4A) Examples of phrases in wills on which sub-paragraph (4) can operate are set out in paragraph 5(3A)")
Page 54, line 15, at end insert—
(" (8) Part II of that Schedule, which repeals enactments superseded by this paragraph, has effect as respects any instrument, other than an existing instrument")
Page 54, leave out lines 19 to 28 and insert ("if either natural parent is the sole adoptive parent.
(2) Where an adopted child (with a sole adoptive parent) is legitimated—

(a) paragraph 2(2) shall not apply after the legitimation to the natural relationship with the other natural parent, and

(b) revocation of the adoption order in consequence of the legitimation shall not affect Part II as it applies to any instrument made before the date of legitimation.")

Page 54, leave out lines 29 and 30.
Page 54, line 36, leave out from first ("by") to ("as") and insert ("one of the natural parents".)
Page 54, line 38, at end insert ("(or, if deceased, is treated as legitimated)")
Page 55, line 2, after ("legitimated",) insert ("(or, if deceased, is treated as legitimated)".)
Page 55, line 11, leave out ("or by both natural parents")
Page 55, line 33, leave out from beginning to ("affect") and insert ("This Schedule shall not")
Page 55, line 42, leave out ("including") and insert ("includes")
Page 55, leave out lines 44 and 45 and insert—

PART V EXTENT
18. This Schedule does not apply to Scotland")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments No. 214 to 247 en bloc. I do not think there are any Amendments which your Lordships will wish to pick out for discussion. Some are consequential on the introduction of the Schedule relating solely to Scotland; others relate to minor points of private international law, citizenship or property law. The rest are purely drafting points. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 248 and 249]
After Schedule 1, insert the following new Schedule—

SCHEDULE STATUS CONFERRED IN SCOTLAND BY ADOPTION
General
1.—(1) In Scotland, a child who is the subject of an adoption order shall, subject to the provisions of this Schedule, be treated in law—

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

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

and as if he were not the child of any person other than the adopters or adopter.
(2) Where an illegitimate child has been adopted by one of his natural parents as sole adoptive parent and the adopter thereafter marries the other natural parent, sub-paragraph (1) shall not affect any enactment or rule of law whereby, by virtue of the marriage, the child is rendered the legitimate child of both natural parents.
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) 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 the making of an adoption order, 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.
(4) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply for the purposes of any provision of—

(a) the British Nationality Acts 1948 to 1965,

(b) the Immigration Act 1971.

(c) any instrument having effect under an enactment within paragraph (a) or (b), or

(d) any other law for the time being in force which determines citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

(5) 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.

(6) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, this paragraph applies for the construction of any enactments or instruments passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act so far as the context admits.
(7) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, this paragraph does not affect things done or events occurring before the adoption or, where the adoption took place before 1st January 1976, before that date.
Pensions
2. The provision in paragraph 1(1) whereby a child who is the subject of an adoption order is to be treated in law as if he were not the child of any person other than the adopters or adopter shall not affect entitlement toa pension which is payable to, or for the benefit of, the child and is in payment at the time of his adoption.
Insurance
3. Where a child is adopted whose natural parent has effected an insurance with a friendly society or a collecting society or an industrial insurance company for the payment on the death of the child of money for funeral expenses, the rights and liabilities under the policy shall by virtue of the adoption be transferred to the adoptive parents who shall for the purposes of the enactments relating to such societies and companies be treated as the person who took out the policy.
Social Security
4.—(1) Paragraph 1 shall not prevent a person being treated as a near relative of a deceased person for the purposes of section 32 of the Social Security Act 1975 (payment of death grant), if apart from paragraph 1 he would be so treated.
(2) Paragraph 1 does not apply for the purposes of section 70(3)(b) or section 73(2) of the Social Security Act 1975 (payment of industrial death benefit to or in respect of an illegitimate child of the deceased and the child's mother).
(3) Subject to regulations made under section 72 of the Social Security Act 1975 (entitlement of certain relative of deceased to industrial death benefit), paragraph 1 shall not affect the entitlement to an industrial death benefit of a person who would, apart from paragraph I, be treated as a relative of a deceased person for the purposes of the said section 72.
Succession and Property
5.—(1) Paragraph 1 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) In section 23 of the Succession (Scotland) Act1964 (adopted person to be treated for purposes of succession, etc., as child of adopter)

(a) in subsection (3), (property devolving along with a title or honour, etc.), after "this section" there is inserted "or in the Children Act 1975";

(b) in subsection (5) (meaning of "adoption order"), for the words from "an order" to "Northern Ireland" there are substituted the words—"

"(a) an adoption order under the Children Act 1975;

(b) an adoption order under the Adoption Act 1958 or the Adoption Act 1950
1342
or any enactment repealed by the Adoption Act 1950;

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

(d) an "overseas adoption" as defined in section 4(3) of the Adoption Act 1968; or

(e) any other adoption recognised by the law of Scotland;

(whether the order took effect before or after the commencement of this Act)'".

(3) In section 24 of the said Act of 1964 (provisions supplementary to section 23), after subsection (1) there is inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Where, in relation to any purpose specified in section 23(1) of this Act, any right is conferred or any obligation is imposed, whether by operation of law or under any deed coming into operation after the commencement of the Children Act 1975, by reference to the relative seniority of the members of a class of persons, then, without prejudice to any entitlement under Part I of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1968 of an illegitimate child who is adopted by one of his parents,

(a) any member of that class who is an adopted person shall rank as if lie had been born on the date of his adoption, and

(b) if two or more members of the class are adopted persons whose dates of adoption are the same, they shall rank as between themselves in accordance with their respective times of birth.".

(4) In section 37(1) of the said Act of 1964 (exclusion from Act of matters relating to titles etc.), after "nothing in this Act" there is inserted "or (as respects paragraph (a) of this subsection) in the Children Act 1975".
Adoption and Legitimation
6.—(1) In section 26 of the Adoption Act 1958, after subsection (1) there is inserted the following subsection—
"(1A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to Scotland, and where the natural parents of an illegitimate child, one of whom has adopted him in Scotland, have subsequently married each other, the court by which the adoption order was made may, on the application of any of the parties concerned, revoke that order.".
(2) Section 1 of the Legitimation (Scotland) Act 1968 (requirements and effects of legitimation) is renumbered subsection (1) and at the end there is added the following subsection—
"(2) Subsection (1) above shall apply in relation to an illegitimate person who has been adopted by one of his natural parents as sole adoptive parent, where the adopter thereafter marries the other natural parent, as it applies in relation to any illegitimate person, to the effect of rendering that person the legitimate child of both natural parents; and in this Act "illegitimate", "legitimated"

1343
and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.".
(3) In section 6(2) of the said Act of 1968, for the words from "of an adoption order" to "1958" there are substituted the words "(under this section or otherwise) of any adoption order within the meaning of Schedule (Status conferred in Scotland by adoption) to the Children Act 1975, in consequence of the marriage of the parents of the adopted person to each other".
Interpretation
7. In this Schedule, "adoption orders" means—

(a) an adoption order as defined in section 74;

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

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

(d) an "overseas adoption" as defined in section 4(3) of the Adoption Act 1968; or

(e) any other adoption recognised by the law of Scotland;)

(whether the order took effect before or after the commencement of this Act); and cognate expressions shall be construed accordingly.")
Schedule 2: Leave out Schedule 2.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Amendment No. 248 relates to Scotland and is linked with No. 249. This new Schedule is a further Scottish addition to the Bill and deals with the status of an adopted child in Scotland. Its primary purpose is to provide a clear statement for Scotland that as from 1st January 1976 an adopted child shall be considered for all purposes in law as the legitimate child of his adopters or adopter and not the child of any other person. The Schedule, which has already been widely welcomed by Scottish interests, covers the same general ground as does Part II of Schedule 1 in relation to England and Wales, but the Scottish provisions are couched in terms which reflect differences in law in Scotland, notably in relation to the law of succession. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 248 and 249.
Moved. That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, subject to the correction of my noble friends, we have now reached the point in the Bill at which we shall have to repose our confidence in the hands of the draftsmen
1344
because we have had so little time to digest these Amendments. Indeed, this is probably the part of the Bill which properly is primarily the responsibility of the draftsmen and the Lord Chancellor's Office. Therefore, I hope the noble Lord will feel free to make any remarks which are necessary on the record as an explanation but that he will not feel it necessary to make any remarks which he may feel are necessary to persuade us on this side of the House.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 250 to 285]
Schedule 3, page 56, line 26, at end insert—
("Children and Young Persons Act 1933 (23 and 24 Geo. 5 c. 12)
Al.—In section 1(1)(b), for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".'
Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 (c. 37)
A2.—In section 12(1)(b) for the words " twenty-five pounds " there is substituted "£400".").
Schedule 3, page 56, line 35, leave out ("£100 ") and insert ("£400")
Schedule 3, page 56, leave out line 37 and insert—
("3. In section 4—

(a) in subsection (3)(a) after the words "parent or guardian" there are inserted the words "or custodian";

(b) for subsection (3)(b) there is substituted")

Schedule 3, page 56, line 41, at end insert—
("3A. In section 43(1), for the words "and the Adoption Act 1968 "there are substituted the words "the Adoption Act 1968 and the Children Act 1975".")
Schedule 3, page 56, page 57, line 18, at end insert—
("Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (c. 37)
6A In section 15. after the words "Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 " there are inserted the words "or sections 30 to 40 of the Children Act 1975".
6B In section 16(2)(a), after sub-paragraph (v) there are insert the following sub-paragraphs—

"(vi) section 4 of the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 on an application made under section 40 of the Children Act 1975;

(vii) section 31(1)(b) of the Children Act 1975;".")

Schedule 3, page 56, line 23, at end insert—
("and there are added at the end the following words "or proceedings on an information".")
Schedule 3, page 56, line 38, leave out("34(3)") and insert—
("34.—(a) in subsection (2) after paragraph (c) there is added the following paragraph—
"(d) in relation to the re-registration of a birth under section 9(5) of this Act"; (b) in subsection (3)")
Schedule 3, page 56, line 39, at end insert—
("(6) In section 41—

(a) after the definition of "disposal" there is inserted the following definition—

" "father", in relation to an adopted child, means the child's natural father;"

(b) after the definition of "the Minister" there is inserted the following definition—

" " mother", in relation to an adopted child, means the child's natural mother;" ")

Schedule 3, page 56, line 46, at end insert—
("Housing Act 1957 (c. 56)
9A. In Schedule 2, in paragraph 4(7) for the words "any illegitimate son or daughter, and any adopted son or daughter" there are substituted the words " and any illegitimate son or daughter".".)
Page 58, leave out lines 1 to 3.
Page 58, line 3, at end insert—
(" Children Act 1958 (6 & ' 7 Eliz. 2 c. 65)
10A. In section 2, as it applies in England and Wales—

(a) in subsection (1), after the word guardian " there is inserted the word custodian";

(b) in subsection (4A),—

(i) for the words "registered adoption society as is referred to in Part II of the Adoption Act 1958 " there are substituted the words "adoption society approved under Part I of the Children Act 1975", and

(ii) for the words "that Act" there are substituted the words "the Adoption Act 1958".

10B. In section 2 as it applies to Scotland, after subsection (4) there is inserted the following subsection—
"(4A) A child is not a foster child for the purposes of this Part of this Act while he is placed in the care and possession of a person who proposes to adopt him under arrangements made by such an adoption agency as is referred to in Part I of the Children Act 1975 or while he is a protected child within the meaning of Part IV of the Adoption Act 1958."
10C. In section 6 for the words "obtained their consent" there are substituted the words "obtained their written consent".
10D. In section 14(2), for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the the words "£400".
10E. In section 37(2), for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".")
Page 58, line 10, at end insert—
(4) For "care and possession" in each place where it occurs there is substituted "actual custody".".
Page 58, line 23, leave out paragraph 14.
Page 58, leave out paragraphs 18 and 19.
Page 58, line 40 leave out from ("section") to end of line 42 and insert—
("32—(a) the following subsections are substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations prohibit unincorporated bodies from applying for approval under section 3 of the Children Act 1975 (Approval of adoption societies); and he shall not approve any unincorporated body whose application is contrary to regulations made under this subsection.
(1A) The Secretary of State may make regulations for any purpose relating to the exercise of its functions by an approved adoption society.";")
Page 58, line 42, at end insert—
(" (b) in subsection (2) for "(1)" there is substituted "(2)" and for the words from "twenty-five pounds to the end of the subsection there are substituted the words "£400".
"(c) the following subsection is added after subsection (3)—
"(4) Regulations under this section may make different provisions in relation to different cases or classes of cases and may exclude certain cases or classes of cases." ")
page 59, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert—
("22. In section 35(6) for the word "six" there is substituted the word three" and for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400.")
page 59, line 13, after ("36") insert ("—(a) in subsection (1)")
page 59, line 15, leave out from first ("and") to end of line 17 and insert—
("(b) for subsection (3), there is substituted the following—
(3) A local authority which receives such notice as aforesaid in respect of achild whom the authority know to be in the care of another local authority shall, not more than seven days after the receipt of the notice, inform that other authority in writing that they have received the notice." ")
page 59, line 18, leave out ("37(1)") and insert ("37—
(a) in subsection (1)")
page 59, line 20, at end insert—
"(b) the following subsections are substituted for subsection (4) —
"(4) A protected child ceases to be protected child—

(a) on the appointment of a guardian for him under the Guardianship Act 1971;

(b) on the notification to the local authority for the area where the child has his home that the application for an adoption order has been withdrawn;

1347

(c) on the making of any of the following orders in respect of the child—

(i) an adoption order;

(ii) an order under section 16 of the Children Act 1975;

(iii) a custodianship order;

(iv) an order under section 42, 43 or 44 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973; or

(d) on his attaining the age of 18, whichever first occurs.

(4A) In relation to Scotland—

(a) subsection (4) does not apply; and

(b) a protected child ceases to be a protected child when—

(i) the application for an adoption order lapses or is withdrawn;

(ii) the application for an adoption order is granted or otherwise determined;

(iii) an order is made awarding custody of the child;

(iv) an order is made appointing a guardian of the child; or

(v) the child attains the age of 18".")

page 59, line 20, at end insert—
24A. In section 40(6) for the words from the beginning to "that is to say" there are substituted the following words "the particulars referred to in subsection (4) of this section are".")
("24B. In section 44(2), for the word "six" there is substituted the word "three" and for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400")
page 59, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
("(aa) in subsection (2), for the word "six" there is substituted the word "three" and for the words "one hundred pounds" there are substituted the words "£400".")
page 59, line 28, at end insert—
("25A. In section 51(2), for the words "fifty pounds" there is substituted the word "£400")
page 59, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—
("26. In section 52(1)—

(a) for the words "fifty-three of this Act" there are substituted the words "(Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975", and

(b) for the word "six" there is substituted the word "three" and for the words "one hundred pounds "there are substituted the words "£400".".

26A. In section 55, after the words "this Act" there are inserted the words "or Part I of the Children Act 1975" ")
page 59, line 39, after ("section") insert ("20 or")
page 60, line 8, leave out ("compulsory school age") and insert ("body of persons")
page 60, line 9, leave out ("words") and insert—
("the following definitions—
"child", except where used to express a relationship, means a person who has not attained the age of 18;" ")
page 60, line 31, leave out ("; and "legal custody" means "custody" ")
page 60, line 37, at end insert—
("Children and Young Persons Act 1963 (c. 37)
30A. In section 49(1), for the words "twenty pounds" there are substituted the words "£100" ")
page 60, leave out lines 38 to 43.
page 61, leave out lines 1 to 17.
line 26, leave out paragraph 34 and insert—
("34. In section 1, the following subsection is substituted for subsection (5) —

"(5) Section 7(3) and (6) of, and paragraph 9A of Schedule 1 and paragraph 3 of Schedule (Status Conferred in Scotland by Adoption) to, the Children Act 1975 apply in relation to a child who is the subject of an order which is similar to an order under section (Adoption of children abroad) of that Act and is made (whether before or after this subsection has effect) in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands, as they apply in relation to a child who is the subject of an adoption order."

34A. In section 3(3) —

(a) for the words "section 5.3 of the said Act of 1958 there are substituted the words" "section (Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975";

(b) for the words from "the word Provisionally" to the end of the subsection there are substituted the words "the words Proposed Foreign Adoption" or, as the case may require, "Proposed Foreign Re-adoption" followed by the name, in brackets, of the country in which the order was made.")

leave out lines 30 to 32.
Page 62, line 14, leave out ("voluntary") and insert ("community")
Page 63, line 16, at end insert—
("39A. In section 6(1) (b), after subparagraph (ii) there is inserted the following sub-paragraph—
"(iii) a child who has been placed for adoption by an adoption agency (within the meaning of section 1 of the Children Act 1975);" ")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his very constructive attitude, which I can assure him is correct in practice and spirit, I should like to move a very large block of Amendments together. They are Amendments Nos. 250 to 285 in Schedule 3. They are mainly consequential, technical or drafting Amendments and I should like to move them en bloc. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 250 to 285 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 286 and 287]
Schedule 3, page 63, line 32, leave out paragraph 41 and insert—
("41. In section 17—

(a) in subsection (3), for "section 16" there is substituted "section 16(1)(a)" and after "local authority" there is inserted ", in whom are vested in accordance with the resolution the parental rights and powers in respect of a child,";

(b) the following subsection is inserted after subsection (3) —

"(3A) A resolution under section 16(1)(b) of this Act shall not prevent the voluntary organisation, in whom are vested in accordance with the resolution the parental rights and powers in respect of a child, from allowing, either for a fixed period or until the voluntary organisation otherwise determine, the care of the child to be taken over by, and the child to be under the control of, a parent, guardian, relative or friend in any case where it appears to the voluntary organisation to be for the benefit of the child.";

(c) in subsection (4), for "section 16" there is substituted "section 16(1)(a)"

(d) in subsection (6), for the words "the said section 16" there is substituted "section 16 of this Act";

(e) in subsection (7), after the words "or authority" there are inserted the words "or a voluntary organisation"

(f) in subsection (8) —

(i) for the words "to whom this section applies" there is substituted ", in respect of whom a resolution under section 16 of this Act is in effect,"; and

(ii) for the words "fifty pounds" there is substituted "£400";

(g) in subsection (9) —

(i) for the words "where a local authority have, in accordance with subsection (3) of this section, allowed" there is substituted—

"Where—

(a) a local authority have, in accordance with subsection (3) of this section; or

(b) a voluntary organisation have, in accordance with subsection (3A) of this section,

allowed";

(ii) for the words "fifty pounds" there is substituted "£400".

41A. In section 18—

(a) in subsection (2), for " section 16" there is substituted "section 16(1)(a);

(b) in subsection (3)—

1350

(i) in paragraph (a), for "paragraph (a)" there is substituted "sub-paragraph (i)";

(ii) for paragraph (b) there is substituted "(b) in the case of a resolution passed by virtue of circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (ii), (iii), or (iv) of subsection (1) of the said section 16, by the person who, but for the resolution, would have the parental rights and powers in relation to the child,";

(iii) after the words "otherwise direct, the local authority" there are inserted the words ".and any voluntary organisation having parental rights and powers with respect to the child,";

(c) in subsection (4), after the words "local authority" there are inserted the words "or voluntary organization".

41 B. In section 32(2)—

(a) for paragraphs (b) and (c) there is substituted—

"(b) he is falling into bad associations or is exposed to moral danger; or

(c) lack of parental care is likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or seriously to impair his health or development; or";

(b) in paragraph (d), for the words Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937"there is substituted "Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 ";

(c) after paragraph (d) there is inserted—

"(dd) the child is, or is likely to become, a member of the same household as a person who has committed any of the offences mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Procedures (Scotland) Act 1975; or".")

page 61, line 38, at end insert—
("42A. In section 49(3) for the words "The sheriff may examine the reporter and" there is substituted—
"The reporter, whether or not he is conducting the proceedings before the sheriff, may be examined by the sheriff; and the sheriff may examine".
42B. In section 69—

(a) in subsection (1), at the end there are added the following words—

"; and a court, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the child is within any premises, may grant a search warrant authorising a constable to search those premises for the child."

(b) for subsection (5) there is substituted—

"(5) In this and the next following section any reference—

(a) to a child absconding includes a reference to his being unlawfully taken away;

(b) to a child absconding from a place or from the control of a person includes a reference to his absconding while being taken to, or awaiting to be taken to, that place or that person as the case may be."

1351
42C In section 70, at the end there are added the following words—

"; and a court, if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the child is within any premises may grant a search warrant authorising a constable to search those premises for the child".

42D In section 71 for the words "one hundred pounds" there is substituted "£400".
42E In section 44(5) after "20", there is inserted "20A.".")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 286 and 287 together. We have already discussed Amendment No. 286 with Amendments Nos. 126 and 129 concerning parental rights; Amendment No. 287 was discussed with Amendment No. 172, retrieval of the child. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 286 and 287.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 288 to 293]
Schedule 3, page 63, line 40, leave out paragraph 43.
Page 64, leave out paragraph 45.
Page 64, line 13, leave out ("reference") and insert ("references")
leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
(""(c) in subsection (4), for the reference to section 14 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953 there shall be substituted a reference to section 20(1) of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965 (which provides for re-registration of births in certain cases)." ")
Page 64, line 37, at end insert—
(" Housing Act 1969 (c.33)
49A. In section 86(2) for the words "any illegitimate son or daughter and any adopted son or daughter "there are substituted the words " and any illegitimate son or daughter".")
Page 64, line 38, at end insert—
("49B. In section 1(2) the following paragraph is inserted after paragraph (b):—
"(bb) it is probable that the condition set out in paragraph (a) of this subsection will be satisfied in his case, having regard to the fact that a person who has been convicted of an offence mentioned in Schedule 1 to the Act of 1933 is, or may become, a member of the same household as the child;" ").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House. I should like to move another major block of Amendments together, comprising Nos.
1352
288 to 293, all relating to Schedule 3. I think that these are part of this whole question of drafting and similar Amendments. I beg to move them en bloc in the spirit stated by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the commons in their Amendments Nos. 288 to 293 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 294.]
Schedule 3, page 65, line 11, at end insert—
("51A. The following section is inserted after section 21—
"Termination of care order on adoption, etc.
21A. A care order relating to a child shall cease to have effect—

(a) on the adoption of the child;

(b) if an order under section 13 or Section (Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975 is made in relation to the child;

(c) if an order similar to an order under section (Adoption of children abroad) of the Children Act 1975 is made in Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands in relation to the child."

51B. In section 27—

(a) in subsection (3), for the words "their general duty aforesaid" there are substituted the words their general duty under section 12(1) of the Children Act 1948";

(b) the following subsections are substituted for subsection (4)—

"(4) Without prejudice to their general duty under the said section 12, it shall be the duty of a local authority to review the case of each child in their care in accordance with regulations made under the following subsection.
(5) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—

(a) the manner in which cases are to be reviewed under this section;

(b) the considerations to which the local authority are to have regard in reviewing cases under this section; and

(c) the time when a child's case is first to be reviewed and the frequency of subsequent reviews under this section.".

51C. In section 58(1) the following passage is inserted after paragraph (b)—
"(bb) premises in which a child is living with a person other than his parent, guardian, or relative or custodian, with whom he has been placed by an adoption agency (within the meaning of section 1 of the Children Act 1975);" ")
10.40 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 294 formally. It was discussed with No. 170. It relates to the six-monthly review. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 295 to 304]
Schedule 3, page 65, line 20, at end insert—
("(2) In Schedule 8—

(a) in paragraph 5, after the words "Social Security Act 1966"there are inserted the words "or section 40 of the Children Act 1975";

(b) after paragraph 11, there is inserted the following paragraph—

"12. An order under section 31(1)(b) of the Children Act 1975 (payments of maintenance in respect of a child to his custodian).".")

Schedule 3, page 65, line 22, after ("1") insert ("(a) at the end of the entry relating to the Adoption Act 1958 there are added the following words "counselling services for adopted persons"; (b)")
Schedule 3, page 65, line 34, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Page 66, line 6, leave out ("child is free for adoption") and insert ("minor is free for adoption (within the meaning of section 11(6) of the Children Act 1975).
(2A) In section 13(2), after the words "order for the payment of money" there are inserted the words " made by a magistrates' court" ").
Page 66, line 12, at end insert—
(" (c) in subsection (5), for the words from "section 9" to "so given" there are substituted the words "section 3(3) or 4(3A) of the Guardianship Act 1973 for the discharge or variation of a supervision order or, as the case may be, an order giving the care of a minor to a local authority or an order requiring payments to be made to an authority to whom care of a minor is so given".")
Page 66, line 13, leave out subparagraph (4).
Page 66, line 14, at end insert—
("Attachment of Earnings Act 1971 (c. 32)
54A. In Schedule 1—

(a) in paragraph 6, after the words "Social Security Act 1966" there are inserted the words" or section 40 of the Children Act 1975";

(b) after paragraph 11, there is inserted the following paragraph—

"12. An order under section 31(1)(b) of the Children Act 1975 (payments of maintenance in respect of a child to his custodian).".

"Parliamentary and Other Pensions Act 1972 (c. 48)
54B. In section 15(6) for the words "a stepchild or adopted child" there are substituted the words "or a stepchild".")
Page 66, line 25, leave out paragraph 57.
Page 66, line 27, at end insert—
(" 57A.—(1) In section 4(3) for the words from "the following provisions" to the end there are substituted the following words "sections 12(2) and 13 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 shall apply as if the order made under section 2 of this Act were an order under section 9 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971.
(2) After section 4(3) there is inserted the following subsection—

"(3A) An order under section 2(2)(b) or (3) above relating to a minor maybe varied or discharged by a subsequent order made on the application of either parent or after the death of either parent on the application of any guardian under the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 or on the application of the local authority to whose care the minor was committed by the order under section 2(2)(b)." "

Page 66, line 31, leave out paragraph 59.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this matter again relates to a large block of Amendments in Schedule 3. With the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 295 to 304 en bloc. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 305 and 306]
Schedule 3, page 66, line 40, leave out ("paragraph is") and insert ("paragraphs are").
Schedule 3, page 66, line 42, at end insert—
(" (g) proceedings under section (Appeals by parents etc.) (2) of the Children Act 1975".".)
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 formally. They were discussed with Nos. 126 and 129. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 307 and 308]
Schedule 3, page 66, line 42, at end insert&—
("Housing Act 1974 (c. 44)
61. In section 129(4) for the words "any illegitimate son or daughter and any adopted

("PART I

STATUS OF ADOPTED CHILD

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. 29.

Adoption of Children Act 1926.

The whole Act so far as unrepealed.

3 & 4 Geo. 6. c. 42.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous (Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1940

Section 2(1) and (3).

11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 43.

Children Act 1948.

In section 59(1), in the definition of "parent", paragraph (a).

11 & 12 Geo. 6. c. 53.

Nurseries and Child-Minders Regulation Act 1948.

In section 13(2), in the definition of "relative" (as inserted by section 13 of the Adoption of Children Act 1949), paragraph (a).

12 & 13 Geo. 6. c. 76.

Marriage Act 1949.

In section 68(3), the words from "includes" to "but".

12, 13 & 14 Geo. 6. c. 98.

Adoption of Children Act 1949.

Section 13(l)(a).

14 & 15 Geo. 6. c.11.

Administration of Justice (Pensions) Act 1950.

Section 26(2).

1 & 2 Eliz. 2. c. 20.

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.

In section 41, in the definition of "relative" the words from "and in relation to" to the end.

3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 18.

Army Act 1955.

In section 150(5), in the paragraph relating to a child of a person, the words "or adopted" and the words from "and in this paragraph" to the end of the paragraph.

3 & 4 Eliz. 2. c. 19.

Air Force Act 1955.

In section 15(5), in the paragraph relating to a child of a person, the words "or adopted" and the words from "and in this paragraph" to the end of the paragraph.

4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c. 69.

Sexual Offences Act 1956.

In section 28(4), in paragraph (a) the words from "has been adopted" to "a girl who" and the words "(and has not been so adopted)".

4 & 5 Eliz. 2. c.70.

Marriage (Scotland) Act 1956.

In section 1(5), paragraph (a) and the words "or adoptive parent" in paragraph (b).

6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 65.

Children Act 1958.

In section 17, the definition of "parent".

6 & 7 Eliz. 2. c. 40.

Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act 1958.

In section 7(1)(b), the words "or an adopted".

Section 7(3).

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Sections 13 and 14.

Sections 15(1), (2) and (3).

Sections 16 and 17.

Section 18(1).

Section 25.

In section 52(1) the words "(whether in law or in fact)".

In section 57(1), in the definition of "relative" paragraph (a.)

Section 58(2) and (3).

In Schedule 5 paragraphs 1 to 4.

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 65.

Fatal Accidents Act 1959.

In section 1, subsection (2)(a) and sub-section (3).

7 &8 Eliz. 2. c. 72.

Mental Health Act 1959.

In section 49, in subsection (2) the words from "an adopted person" to "as aforesaid", and subsection (5).

8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 48.

Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act 1960.

In section 16(1), the words "or adopted" and "but does not include a child adopted by some other person or persons", and the words from "and adopted" to the end.

son or daughter" there are substituted the words "and any illegitimate son or daughter".")
Schedule 4, page 67, leave out from beginning of line 3 to end of Schedule and insert&—

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

8 & amp; 9 Eliz. 2. c. 59.

Adoption Act 1960.

Section 1(2).

8 & 9 Eliz. 2. c. 61.

Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1960.

In section 45, in subsection (2) the words from "adopted person" to "person; and"; and subsection (5).

1964 c. 57.

Adoption Act 1964.

Section 1(1), (2) and (4).

1965 c. 49.

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages Scotland Act 1965.

In section 56(1), in the definition of "relative" the words from "and in relation to" to the end.

1965 c. 53.

Family Allowances Act 1965.

Section 17(4).

1967 c. 29.

Housing Subsidies Act 1967.

In section 24(3)(c), the word "adopted".

1967 c. 81.

Companies Act 1967.

In section 30(2), the words "and adopted son" and "and adopted daughter".

In section 31(5), the words "and adopted son" and "and adopted daughter".

1967 c. 88.

Leasehold Reform Act 1967.

In section 7(7), the words "and any adopted son or daughter".

In section 18(3), the words "and any adopted son or daughter".

1968 c. 49.

Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

In section 94(1), in the definition of "parent", paragraph (a).

1968 c. 53.

Adoption Act 1968.

Section 4(1) and (2)

Section 10(2) and (3).

1968 c. 71.

Race Relations Act 1968.

In section 7(4) the words "and any adopted son or daughter".

1971 c. 56.

Pensions (Increase) Act 1971.

In section 3(7), the words from "and includes" to the end.

1973 c. 16.

Education Act 1973.

In section 3(5), the words from "and a Child" to the end.

1973 c. 18.

Matrimonial Causes Act 1973.

In section 52(1), the definition of "adopted" and, in the definition of "child", the words or "adopted".

1973 c. 45.

Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.

In section 4(5), the words from "and in its Application" to the end.

1975 c. 14.

Social Security Act 1975.

In section 32(3)(c), the words "the same relationship by adoption and to include also"

In section 71(6), the words "and a parent by adoption".

In section 161(2), the words "a son or daughter by adoption and".

In Schedule 20, in the definition of "relative" the words "or adoption".

1975 c. 61.

Child Benefit Act 1975.

Section 24(3)(c.)

The repeals of sections 16 and 17 of the 1958 Act, and of provisions containing references to those sections, have effect subject to paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 1, and the other repeals in this Part have effect as respect things done, or events occurring after 31st December 1975.

PARE II

LEGITIMATION

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

16&amp;17Geo. 5.c. 60.

Legitimacy Act 1926.

Section 1(3).

Sections 3 to 5.

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".

1969 c. 46.

Family Law Reform Act 1969.

Section 14(8).

Section 15(4) and (6).

These repeals have effect subject to paragraph 11(8) of Schedule 1.

PART III

MISCELLANEOUS

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

23 & 25 Geo. 5.c. 12.

Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

In section 1, in subsection (l)(a), the words "not exceeding one hundred pounds", and in subsection (5), the words from "the maximum" to "pounds, and".

1937 c 37.

Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

In section 12, in subsection (l)(a), the words "not exceeding one hundred pound", and in subsection (5)(o) the words from "the maximum" to "pounds, and".

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

In section 4(2), the words from "(either" to "brought up)".

Section 7(1)(b) and (2).

In section 20(4), the words from "pursuant to" to "in force".

Section 21(3).

Section 49.

In section 57(1) the definition of "infant".

Schedules 1 and 2.

1963 c. 37.

Children and Young Persons Act 1963.

Sections 49 and 54.

1965 c. 49.

Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965

Section 54(l)(d).

1968 c. 22.

Legitimation (Scotland) Act 1968.

In section 6(3), the words "or to subsection (1) of that section".

1968 c. 53.

Adoption Act 1968.

Sections 1 to 3.

In section 9(5), the words "or adoption".

In section 11(1), the definitions of "qualified Infant", "qualified person" and "qualified spouses".

In section 12(1), the words "or under Part I of the Act of 1958 in its application to adoption orders and proposed adoption orders", the words "or the said Part I" in both places where they occur and the words from "and the rules" to the end.

In section 14(3), the words from "except the" to "1958 and".

1969 c. 54.

Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

Section 27(2).

1973 c. 29.

Guardianship Act 1973.

Section 3(5).

These repeals take effect on 1st January 1976.

PART IV

ADOPTION ORDERS

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Sections 1 and 2.

Sections 4 and 5.

Section 7(l)(a) and (c) and (3).

Section 9(l) and (5).

Section 10.

Section 11(1) and (3).

Section 12.

Section 21(2).

1966 c. 19.

Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1966.

Section 4.

1971 c. 3.

Guardianship of Minors Act 1971.

Section 16(2).

These repeals take effect on the date section 7(1) comes into force.

PART V

CHILDREN IN CARE OF LOCAL AUTHORITES

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

10 & 11 Geo. 6. c.43.

Children Act 1948.

Section 3(1) and (2).

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Section 15(4) and (5).

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 72.

Mental Health Act 1959.

In Schedule 7, the entry relating to the Children Act 1948.

1963 c. 37.

Children and Young Persons Act 1963.

Section 48.

1968 c. 49.

Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

Section 17(1) and (2).

In section 18(4) the words " but where on such an application the court appoints a guardian the resolution shall cease to have effect".

1971 c.3.

Guardianship of Minors Act 1971.

In section 5(2) the words from "but where "to the end.

These repeals take effect on the date sections 50 and 58 come into force.

PART VI

REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

1953 c. 20.

Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953.

In section 3, the words "and of any person in whose charge the child may be placed" and the proviso.

In section 6, the words "or finding" and in that section and in section 7 the words "or from the date when any living new-born child is found exposed".

In section 8, the words "or, in the case of a living new-born child found exposed, from the date of the finding".

In section 36(a), the words "or any living new-born child".

1969 c. 46.

Family Law Reform Act 1969.

Section 27(2), (3), (4) and (5).

These repeals take effect on the date section 65 comes into force.

PART VII

ADOPTION AGENCIES

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Section 28(2).

Sections 30 and 31.

In section 32(3) the words from "children" to the end.

In selection 57(1) the definitions of "charitable association" and "registered adoption society".

Schedule 3.

1970 c. 42

Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.

In column 2 of Schedule 1, the words "Making etc. arrangements for the adoption of children; regulation of adoption societies.".

These repeals take effect on the date section 3 comes into force.

PART VIII

GUARDIANS AD LITEM ETC. IN ADOPTION CASES

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c.5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Section 6.

Section 9(7) and (8).

Section 11(4) and (5).

These repeals take effect on the date section 19 comes into force.

PART IX

INQUIRIES ETC. BY ADOPTION AGENCIES

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

Section 3.

Section 8.

Section 53.

In section 57 (1), the defintion of "Compulsory School age."

These repeals take effect on the date section 17 comes into force.

PART X

GRANTS ETC. FOR VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

10 & 11 Geo. 6.C.43.

Children Act 1948

Section 45(2).

Section 65(2).)

1969 c. 54

Children and Young Persons Act 1969.

Section 65(2).

These repeals take effect on the date paragraphs 36 and 37 of Schedule 3 come into force

PART XI

PROTECTED CHILDREN

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

7 & 8 Eliz. 2. c. 5.

Adoption Act 1958.

In section 37(1), paragraph (a), the words "of the person first mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection or, as the case may be," and the words "but is foster child within the meaning of Part I of the Children Act 1958".

Section 37(2) and (5).

Section 40(1), (2) and (3).

Sections 41 and 42.

In section 43(1), the words from "or in contravention" to "of this Act".

These repeals take effect on the date paragraph 24(A) of Schedule 3 comes into force.

PART XII

CUSTODIANSHIP

Chapter

Short Title

Extent of Repeal

1973 c. 29.

Guardianship Act 1973.

In section 2, in subsection (2)(b), the words "or to any other individual" and in subsection (4)(b) the words "or to any person given the custody of the minor".

In section 3(3), the words from "or (before" to "section 9(1) of that Act" and the words from "and section 16(5)" to the end.

These repeals take effect on the date section 30 comes into force.")

Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we have now reached the last two Amendments. They relate to Schedules 3 and 4. Amendment No. 308 lists various repeals which are made by the Bill which we have been discussing, and I beg to move them formally as the last act of our deliberations today. May I thank noble Lords, and particularly noble Baronesses, for being so understanding in bearing with me as I have clung to my brief as a drowning man to his lifebelt. But I hope that between us we have been able to have a useful discussion on this very valuable Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.&—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, notwithstanding the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, to move the Adjournment, I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of my noble friends to record our thanks. We all admired the tremendous contribution which my noble friend Lady Young made to this Bill until a very late stage, with a mixture of intellectual grasp and human compassion, which is ideal for the job in hand, from which she was unfortunately taken to take part in the proceedings on another Bill. Other noble and learned Lords have been of great assistance. Your Lordships should take note that the only noble Lord on either Front Bench who has been here continuously from start to finish of this exercise has been my noble friend Lord Sandys, whose persistent and lucid contributions have had a great effect upon the Bill. The Bill is indeed a noble edifice and reflects credit on this House, and on the other place, if I may say it without being deemed to be in any way
1368
patronising, where there were many instances of inter-Party co-operation and compromise which were edifying to all of us. I think I might add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and his team of advisers who have been extremely helpful to us on this side; and our congratulations to the noble Lord. Lord Winterbottom, who has come through a very testing time unshaken and without having created any animosity against himself as a result. My Lords, I beg to support the two Amendments.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, for explaining so well tonight the difficult clauses. I would also add that I hope this legislation will help many children. Whatever legislation is passed, I still do not think it will be any good without the help of the community in safeguarding children at risk.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I assure the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that I did not wish to movethe adjournment of the House a moment sooner than was absolutely necessary for your Lordships to complete this very important Bill and that I have listened to your Lordships' deliberations with the greatest of interest.

BROOKWOOD CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
  SHARD BRIDGE BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.