Lords Sitting of 26 July 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

FAMILY DOCTORS: CARE OF THE ELDERLY
Baroness VICKERS: 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, in view of the cutting down of the services in acute hospitals, they will state what action is being taken to reward family doctors for the considerable extra work they will have to undertake including the treatment of the increasing number of old people needing care in their homes.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we envisage a lower rate of growth, not a cut down in expenditure. The rate of growth envisaged for services—including hospital services—used mainly by the elderly is greater than the predicted increase in the elderly population. It would be for the Review Body on Doctors' and Dentists' Remuneration to take into account, in the light of incomes policy, any increase in general practitioners' workload in the recommendations they make to the Prime Minister.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. He will agree with me, I hope, that the general practioners in the National Health Service play a really splendid part, and that, in view of the fact that there is to be a cut in the building of acute hospitals in particular, surely their burden will be increased? Bearing in mind the fact that they have to attend to many more elderly, whom we want to keep out of hospitals rather than put into hospitals, surely general practitioners need a just reward?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understand the anxiety of the noble Baroness, and I should like to take this opportunity of saying that we recognise the valuable contribution which the medical profession makes to the health and happiness of the community, as it has done for many years. As the noble Baroness will know, the Consultative Document on Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services considered the position of the elderly and gave Regional Health Authorities certain advice in the matter; the advice being to give some priority to the plight of the elderly. We are satisfied that notwithstanding the reduced rate of growth it will be possible to deal with the needs of the elderly.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, does the Minister agree that although the general practitioner had a very raw deal when the National Health Service was first introduced, he has quite a fair deal today?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That is the view of Her Majesty's Government, my Lords.
Baroness SUMMERKILL: My Lords, do I understand from what the noble Lord says that the geriatric services have been specifically excluded from the cuts?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: They have not been specifically excluded, my Lords, but advice has been given as to how the needs of the geriatric services should be met.
Baroness BROOKE of YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, in view of the over-worked state of most general practioners, either in groups or singly, will Her Majesty's Government consider advocating a scheme whereby elderly people leaving hospital to return home to a solitary life on their own, are informed as to where they can get medical help and advice if they are suddenly taken ill again? I ask this knowing that many old people are very diffident about giving trouble.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, anyone entering hospital will presumably have a general practitioner as his or her doctor, so on leaving hospital the patient would know who his or her doctor is.

1033
I would assume that when an elderly person, as well as any other patient, leaves hospital the doctor would be informed that his patient has been returned to his or her home. So far as the elderly are concerned, I can see the need perhaps for some kind of watchdog, but I cannot say that there are any plans for this, which is a matter that is normally dealt with very effectively by voluntary organisations.
Baroness BROOKE of YSTRADFELLTE: My Lords, will Her Majesty' Government consider looking at the scheme which I understand has been very successful in Eastbourne, whereby the milkman is the co-operative link in passing on knowledge?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall pass the comments and observations of the noble Baroness on to my right honourable friend.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, can the Minister tell me how long it takes generally, when an elderly patient has been discharged from hospital, for the hospital's letter stating what the hospital has done, to reach the general practitioner?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Not without notice, my Lords.

UNITED NATIONS: MOON TREATY
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space is discussing a treaty about the moon, whether the United Kingdom is a party to these discussions, and whether a copy of the present working draft can be placed in the Library.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): Yes, my Lords. A moon treaty has been discussed for some years by the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Her Majesty's Government are represented at the annual sessions of the main com
1034
mittee and of its sub-committee of legal experts responsible for preparing texts. The present working drafts are contained in documents issued by the United Nations Outer Space Committee, copies of which are automatically supplied to the Library as soon as they appear. Copies of the working drafts from the 1974–76 discussions are now available in consolidated form, and I have arranged to place copies in the Library.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what the world needs, in point of fact, are peace treaties for the problems of the earth before we worry about the problems of the moon?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Of course, my Lords, we all agree with that sentiment. On the other hand, man has landed on at least one celestial planet and may land on others—Venus, Jupiter, who knows? One hopes that he will be received with Jovial rather than Martial acclamation.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the Minister ask this committee of the United Nations to take measures that will prevent little green men from defacing the landscape of Mars by Shakespearian graffiti on the boulders?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will take that suggestion and advisement in conjunction with one or two suggestions I have heard that little yellow men should not deface cricket pitches.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I congratulate the Minister on being so full-sighted as to how his future responsibilities may be enlarged?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not dare to attempt to start answering such a question.

METROPOLITAN POLICE STRENGTH
2.45 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: 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, in view of the increase in crime in all categories, and the overall deficiency of 5,208 officers of the Metropolitan Police for the year 1975, as stated in the Report of the Commissioner of Police to the Home Secretary (Cmnd. 6496, June 1976), what steps are being taken to bring the force up to approved strength.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the actual number of vacancies in the Metropolitan Police on 31st December 1975 was 5,401. I am glad to say that by 30th June 1976 the vacancies had been reduced by 489 to 4,912. In all, 992 recruits joined the force during the first six months of this year. The training arrangements have been expanded, and the force is now taking in as many recruits as it can absorb. The strength of the Metropolitan Police is now the highest in the history of the force.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that somewhat reassuring reply, may I nevertheless put a point to him and ask this question? Could the Minister say whether the approved strength of the Metropolitan Police Force is a policy matter which has been agreed, say, between the Commissioner of Police and the Home Secretary based on a judgment of what is necessary to maintain law and order in any foreseeable contingency which might arise? Therefore, in the circumstances of the reply which the noble Lord has given me, is he satisfied that, although the force will not be right up to strength, they have the number required to deal with any contingency in any breakdown which might occur in the foreseeable future? Can the noble Lord give some assurance on that?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Commissioner is aware that he can recruit up to his establishment, and that position remains after the current review of public expenditure announced by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer last week. I think the answer to the second question is, "Yes".
Lord SLATER: My Lords, can my noble friend state how many police
1036
authorities have reached their establishment against that of the Metropolitan Police? What is the disparity between the two?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the manpower problem in London is by far the most serious, but, having said that, it is right to acknowledge that there has been a similar difficult problem in all the major conurbations. I think the London problem has been recognised by my right honourable friend and by his predecessors as by far the most single difficult problem facing the Police Service in this country, but it is also right to say that in 1975 we have been through one of our best years for police recruitment. There was a net gain of over 5,000 men and women last year, and a very substantial number of forces are now as near as it is possible to be up to their establishment.
Viscount ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Lord help us and make the matter a little clearer by giving us, perhaps, the percentage of the shortfall of membership of the Metropolitan Police? If he has not got that information to hand, can he tell us the total of establishment so that we can work it out for ourselves, in order to see just how serious this shortage is?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I indicated in my original Answer the shortfall which remained in the Metropolitan Police. Referring to the situation on 30th June of this year, I said that the number of vacancies had been reduced in the first six months of this year by 489 to 4,912. That is the situation. My knowledge of mathematics is, I regret to say, so sketchy that I dare not make an "off the cuff" calculation on a percentage basis.

MONTREAUX CONVENTION AND THE BOSPHORUS
2.50 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what communications have been made

1037
by the Soviet Union to the other signatories of the Montreux Convention of 1936 about the passage through the Bosphorus of the warship "Kiev", which appears to be an aircraft carrier and thus debarred by the Convention from passing.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the only communication of which I am aware is the notification under the Convention by the Soviet Union to the Turkish Government that an unnamed cruiser would transit the Straits in a Southward direction on 18th July.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, do the Government accept that this ship, which has a 600-foot long angled flight deck, and her superstructure to one side, and is capable of carrying—and apparently is carrying at the moment—some 35 fixed-wing aircraft, can be properly described as a cruiser?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in modern terms it could be described as either; but we take the view that, very much on balance, it fits the description of an aircraft carrier. However, the Montreux provisions are not absolutely precise on definitions. After all, the Convention was 40 years ago. The Soviet officials themselves described the vessel to the notifiable authority, the Turkish Government, as an antisubmarine cruiser. That is why the Turkish Government acceded to its transit through the Straits.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords do the British Government regard the Montreux Convention as prohibiting aircraft carriers from passing through the Bosphorus; and did the Soviet Union even go through the motions of removing the aircraft and the fittings as an aircraft carrier before this warship passed through the Bosphorus?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not know that they went through the motions of removing that equipment before sending the ship through the Bosphorus. The photographs would indicate that, whether they did so or not, they were very much there. On the first question, I think it is a matter for continuing discussion between us and our
1038
friends and allies as to the situation that arises in terms of the balance of power in the Mediterranean. NATO is properly concerned about the balance of power in the Mediterranean as in other theatres that concern it. On the political side, it is for us, as and when we consider it right, to consult the co-signatories, either all of them or some of them. This we have been doing and will continue to do. I do not think that anything could be gained by going at this question too early or too strongly.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend know of anything that can stop the Russians passing through the Bosphorus? If he does, will he inform us what it is—and is this part of the policy of détente?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, apart from my noble friend I can think of nothing immediately that would prevent the Russian vessels doing anything anywhere. This is a Convention of 1936 which was drawn in the light of the knowledge, technical and political, available to those who signed it at that time. It has served a very useful peaceful purpose since then. As a result of regrettable incidents like this it may be that it is time to look at it again. But, as I have said, we should not go at this too early or too strongly. I hope that my noble friend will curb his impatience for a short time.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord say, in view of the latest round of defence cuts, whether it was by accident or design that there was an RAF Nimrod and a base in Malta from which to take the photographs we have seen.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there was a Nimrod on the spot. For that, the noble Lord and myself should be rather gratified. As to the relationship of this matter to the proposed defence cuts, he knows better than anybody that it has absolutely nothing to do with it.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree, since he has referred to discussions about the balance of power, that our authority in any discussions with our allies on this subject

1039
is bound to have been compromised by the decline in our defence position?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is a point of view; there are others.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, would my noble friend say precisely what action is open to us if Turkey decides to allow any ship to pass through the Bosphorus?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, under the Montreux Convention the Turkish Government was deputed to be the notifiable Government by any naval Power purporting to send a vessel through the Bosphorus, either out of the Black Sea or into the Black Sea. The Turks therefore exercise a power which, if they choose to say has been infringed, no doubt they will bring to the notice of the cosignatories to the Convention or some of them.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if my noble friend has not already answered the Question—he may have answered it; but if he has not—why not refer this to the United Nations or the Security Council and ascertain how many friends we have in that establishment?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly any suggestion made by my noble friend will be carefully considered by my Department.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, as the Minister used the expression "regrettable", would he on reflection tell us what is regrettable about a Russian vessel of war passing through the Bosphorus with the permission of the Turkish Government, as opposed to the escape into Turkish waters with all the consequences of the "Goeben" and the "Breslau" in the heyday of British Naval power, an event that came about entirely through the incompetence of the British Naval staff?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly the first part of what my noble friend said has substance. What is regrettable is that notification was made in terms of a vessel described as a cruiser but which is clearly more describable as an aircraft carrier. We take the view that, under the Montreux Convention, an
1040
aircraft carrier is not in the class of vehicles which ought to be allowed transit. It would seem to us—and I hope that I am wrong—to have circumvented the spirit, if not the terms, of the Convention.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the same words can be used in relation to a proposal by Britain to build a through-deck cruiser which is an anti-submarine vessel, as this one is, armed with the Harrier; whereas this vessel has a considerable number of aircraft of a comparable class to an aircraft carrier. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, except for the typical ignorance and hypocrisy that is expressed today.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if my noble friend will look at what I said, he will see that I said that this vessel could be described as coming within either class. No doubt others could be so described. This is why I followed that remark by twice saying that it would be unwise to go at this too early and too strong.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, could the noble Lord say anything about Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the other eleven aircraft carriers which are apparently under construction in Black Sea yards? Is he aware that the House will take much comfort from the half courage of his second last answer?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not aware that there are that number under construction in the Black Sea. That is a point of fact which perhaps the noble Lord and I might discuss without engaging unduly in public speculation. As to what he said about the latter part of my remarks, it comes to this. Here is a Convention which in the context of 1936 and since has served the world well, and the Mediterranean world particularly. It may be that in the light of this incident and other facts, technological and political, of the modern world, we need to look at the position afresh. We should so so after due thought and not rush at it too early and, I repeat, too strongly.

ENDOWMENTS AND GLEBE MEASURE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Endowments and Glebe Measure, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Measure at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Measure.
2.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON The Lord Bishop of LONDON rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Endowments and Glebe Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I rise to invite this House to pass an Affirmative Resolution on the Endowments and Glebe Measure. As noble Lords will appreciate from the reports of the Legislative Committee of the General Synod and of the Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament, this is a complex Measure and it would be all too easy for us to become so involved in the minutiae of its provisions as to lose sight of the broad principles underlying it. A great deal of preparatory work has been done, as is illustrated by the facts and figures supplied in the reports and I am confident that your Lordships would wish to express our thanks to those who have so carefully documented the issues that are before the House today.
The Ecclesiastical Committee of Parliament has by a majority resolved that this Measure is expedient. Having received a number of objections to the Measure—and there are always more people ready to express their dissatisfaction than there are those who are vocal in support of any measure—the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee devotes the greater part of its attention to the criticisms of the Measure and pays rather half-hearted tribute to the immense amount of care and labour which has been devoted by the Church Assembly and by the General Synod to the subject of the remuneration of the clergy over a period of many years. In a moment I hope to put before your Lordships the broad, positive principles which underlie this
1042
Measure, and the reasons why it is so important for the welfare of the Church and of the clergy that it should become law.
There are, however, three matters in the Ecclesiastical Committee's Report to which I must refer specifically, since otherwise misunderstanding may arise. The first concerns the last words of paragraph 17. The Committee is here considering the guaranteed annuity of up to £1,000 a year. The report states:
"…in considering the principle involved the Committee has proceeded as though this Measure provided that after the next vacancy the benefice will cease to have any income representing its old endowment income".
It is not clear why the Committee considered that it should proceed on this assumption, since it is patently not the case. The figure of up to to £1,000 is provided for the important psychological reason of ensuring a link between the old endowment and the new pay structure. So it must not be thought that on a vacancy a benefice will cease to have any income representing its old endowment income.
In fact, as Appendix II shows, 8,282 parishes out of the total of 10,595, having at the present time under £1,000 of endowment income, will continue to be guaranteed for their incumbent exactly the same sum as exists at present. The other 2,313 benefices with endowments over £1,000 will receive this guaranteed annuity plus the personal grant to a sitting incumbent equal to any excess over £1,000 per annum of net annual endowment income to which he is entitled so long as he holds that office. These facts are important and they should not be forgotten.
The second point which requires comment is contained in paragraph 18 where the report is dealing with the relevance of charity law. The report refers to Clause 11(2) of the Endowments and Glebe Measure which states that property held on trust by private trustees may be transferred to the Church Commissioners only with the consent of the Charity Commissioners. This refers of course to trusts of comparatively recent origin. What the Measure is dealing with in the main are those endowments, often of very ancient origin, conferred on the Church. Their administration was entrusted by Parliament some 140 years ago, not to the Charity Commissioners but to the

1043
Ecclesiastical Commissioners. This body was given its own legal framework within which it exercises its responsibilities. Accordingly, over the years legislation has increasingly dealt with them as endowments of the Church as a whole and not as endowments of individual charities as they would have been under the ordinary charity law. This measure is entirely consistent with this trend.
Thirdly, I must mention the issues raised in paragraph 22 on page 10. The argument is often used that the possession of endowment by a particular parish may protect it from being the object of pastoral reorganisation. The report quite rightly points out that there is no substance in this assertion. I have been a diocesan Bishop for 21 years and I have been involved both as a Bishop and as a member of the Board of the Church Commissioners with innumerable schemes for pastoral reorganisation. I cannot remember a single one in which the diocese hesitated in setting forward a scheme for pastoral reorganisation because one of the parishes was heavily endowed. Nor can I remember a single case in which the Church Commissioners either refused or agreed to forward a scheme because this issue was involved. Pastoral reorganisation is purely a matter for the statutory pastoral committee of the diocese and it exercises its responsibilities within the powers of the Pastoral Measure.
I come now, my Lords, to the broad principles of reform which the Measure seeks to establish. In the main, if approved by Parliament the endowments attaching to certain parishes will be pooled subject to certain safeguards and used for the benefit of the stipends of the clergy generally, and the ownership of glebe will be transferred from individual clergy to the Diocesan Board of Finance for a similar general use. Stated thus baldly the Measure sounds to be rapacious and ruthless. I confess that at one time I myself thought it to be so. I have a strong historical sense and I did not like the idea of detaching from individual benefices endowments which had been allocated to them by benefactors in the past. But I have studied the issues with care and I have come to appreciate that the Measure intends to do the right thing and I believe that it does so and therefore I am able to commend it wholeheartedly to your Lordships.
As the Legislative Committee's Report points out on page 17, Church legislation of this sort is not new. The Ecclesiastical Commission, created 140 years ago, deprived some of the great Sees such as Canterbury, York, London, Durham and Winchester of their vast emoluments and removed the incomes of many Cathedral Chapters and sinecure offices for the creation and augmentation of the Commissioners' General Fund. You will remember, my Lords, that this led to a certain amount of acrimonious correspondence on the part of Sidney Smith at the time. I remember when my father, some 40 years ago, was made a prebendary in St. Paul's Cathedral he claimed that as a result of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners he had been deprived of some £38,000 a year for doing absolutely nothing. Thus it was an extremely unpopular move when the Ecclesiastical Commission was set up. But as my great predecessor Bishop Blomfield, the chief architect of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners remarked:
"They now blame me for these measures, but they will hereafter confess that those very measures have been the saving of the Church".
And he was right.
Nearer to our own time the radical Benefices (Stabilisation of Incomes) Measure 1951, passed by this House, provided that money endowments held by the Commissioners in trust for individual benefices were to be transferred to their general fund with a fixed annual payment, so that any income growth would be available not to the benefice but for the benefit of the clergy generally. The Pastoral Measure passed by this House in 1968 authorised by a scheme or order the diversion of part of the endowments of a benefice to the Diocesan Stipends Fund for the benefit of all the clergy without requiring the consent of the incumbent concerned.
This Measure therefore stands in a long line of enactments designed to provide a more just and equitable distribution of the Church's endowments for the benefit of the clergy generally. It is the Church's commitment to minister to the whole nation, both in the town and in the country, and it is no part of this Measure to take the clergy away from the country, as has sometimes been suggested. On the contrary, what we want to be sure of is that the clergy are placed right throughout the whole nation and that in

1045
any place, whether they be in town or the country, they have enough to live on.
The substance of this Measure has been under discussion for well over 10 years. Following a report entitled Partners in Ministry which was published in 1967, a questionnaire which went out to the dioceses revealed that 85 per cent. of the replies favoured a more uniform system of remuneration and nearly 60 per cent. favoured the pooling of endowment and glebe income. The Terms of Ministry Committee, which was set up to advise on the best way forward, recommended, and the General Synod accepted in 1972. that benefice endowment income and glebe income should he pooled and the glebe transferred into diocesan ownership. This Measure is the outcome.
Subject to the safeguards I have already mentioned, we should ask: does this Measure impose any injustice on anyone? I can confidently assert my belief that it does not. I ask your Lordships to note how small in fact is the immediate impact of this Measure. All dioceses have accepted a minimum stipend for incumbents of £2,400 a year, plus a house which is rate and rent free. Thus, Appendix II reveals that there are only 413 parishes out of 10,595 which have endowments sufficient to meet this modest target. All the rest must he subsidised from central funds. Again, out of the 4,846 benefices which receive income from glebe, 4,622—that is all but 224—receive less than £1,000; and they are going to be granted a guaranteed annuity of up to £1,000.
I can state that as a result of this Measure no clergyman will be worse off than he is at present, and progressively many will be far better off. All that will happen is that the present incumbents will continue to enjoy the equivalent of the existing income from endowments and their successors will have a guaranteed sum of up to £1,000 and for the rest will be brought up to the diocesan standard from central funds and parochial giving. If the incumbent owns glebe, he will no longer be able to manage it himself (a task of which many would be gladly rid) and he would not be the beneficiary of any increase of income from the glebe if, for instance, it were to be sold for a large sum. But neither is he such a beneficiary today, since it is always open to a diocese
1046
to promote a scheme under the Pastoral Measure for a diversion of the income of a benefice to the Diocesan Stipends Fund even without the consent of the incumbent if, as a result of fortuitous circumstances, the benefice income is inflated beyond the general standard of diocesan remuneration.
But, my Lords, is it offensive to natural justice to take away from some benefices sources of income which were allocated to an incumbent at the time of his institution? The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, clearly thinks it is, since in his Amendment he seeks to persuade your Lordships to refuse an Affirmative Resolution to the Measure on the grounds that:
"contrary to natural justice, it removes from certain incumbents the ownership of lands lawfully bestowed on them."
I confess that it is a surprise to me that such an Amendment should emanate from the Benches of a radical Party devoted to reform, as I had looked for support from that quarter for a Measure which is so clearly forward-looking and progressive. The noble Lord uses the term "natural justice", and I am advised that in English law it is used only in limited contexts, such as a failure in a judicial tribunal to give each party the opportunity to state their case or to fail to decide a dispute honestly and without bias. I am advised that in law there is no breach of natural justice if property is taken away from a person by the due processes of law. We all have a good deal of our property removed by taxation; some of us have had property removed by compulsory purchase. None of us enjoy the process, but we submit because such action is taken by Statute in the interests of the nation as a whole.
It was this principle which was at work when there were transferred to the Ecclesiastical Commissioners the estates lawfully bestowed on bishops, deans, chapters and other ecclesiastical corporations in the last century by Statute, for the benefit of the Church as a whole. It is this principle which is at work in the Pastoral Measure today, because if in the process of promoting the scheme of pastoral reorganisation it is necessary to do so, a clergyman can be deprived not merely of income but of the benefice itself, so long, of course, as he is properly remunerated and compensated. This

1047
Measure continues this process, and I submit that there is no breach of natural justice.
My Lords, in the broadest terms, this Measure is one further step in bringing the Church of England out of the 19th century and into the 20th. Rightly, we no longer tolerate a Bishop of Barchester living in luxury in his palace and Archdeacon Grantley enjoying his wealth at Plumstead Episcopi, while Mr. Quiverful and Mr. Crawley of Hogglestock eke out a miserable existence on a few pounds a year. We still need to get away from the picture of the parson as a landowner, relying for much of his income on the proceeds of his glebe. The establishment of the Church Commissioners as the Central Stipends Authority has at long last brought us nearer to a uniform system of payment for all the clergy. We have a long way to go to provide a proper standard for the payment of the clergy, but if we are to go to the laity and ask them for a greatly increased standard of giving we must be able to assure them that the Church is using its resources justly and efficiently. We shall be able to give that assurance if this resolution is passed by this House today.
The Measure is, as I have reminded your Lordships, the outcome of many years of thought and consultation by the Church and there is no ground whatsoever for saying that there has not been enough consultation. It received final approval in July of last year by a vote of 229 in favour and 34 against, with five abstentions. I trust that your Lordships will endorse the judgment of the General Synod, and help us go forward in the demanding task of rewarding the clergy adequately. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Endowments and Glebe Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent—(The Lord Bishop of London).
3.20 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY rose to move, as an Amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("declines to direct that the Endowments and Glebe Measure be presented to Her Majesty for Royal
1048
Assent on the ground that, contrary to natural justice, it removes from certain incumbents the ownership of lands lawfully bestowed on them".) The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper. This is an unusual Amendment to be moved in your Lordships' House and, as the right reverend Prelate has already suggested, I am possibly an even more unusual person to move it. There are many people who think, because of the position of the Establishment, that Parliament should permanently have the right to pass judgment on and, if necessary, veto the Measures of the Church, and I know that among those who are to speak today there are at least one or two people who take that point of view. It is a very understandable one, but it is not one that I myself take.
I believe it is right that the Church of England should, within very broad limits, have control of its own affairs and if it is argued, as indeed it is argued by some of my colleagues, that the price for that should be disestablishment, I, for one, would not flinch at paying that price. Therefore, I should not, in the normal way, seek to persuade your Lordships to obstruct a Measure coming from the Synod to Parliament, however much I disagreed with, or disapproved of, what it had to say. But there is an exception to this rule, and I suggest that we have such an exception before us today. I think that the Church should have control over its own affairs, in the same way as any other body has control over its own affairs; that is, within the limits of the law of the land and the bounds of what I, however inaccurately, persist in calling natural justice; for, whatever the specialised meaning of the term, I have no doubt that most of your Lordships understand what I mean.
Although as a nation we are used to the idea of compulsory purchase, it is not one which we have handed over indiscrimately to other bodies, apart from the Legislature and those which are obviously immediately dependent upon them, such as local government. Therefore, there is a very distinct difference between the compulsory purchase as it is usually employed in this country today, and the compulsory purchase which we are asked to approve in the House this afternoon. So when the Church comes to this House and asks

1049
us to allow it to expropriate the rights of individuals in a manner which no other body would be allowed to do, and which, if the Church were self-governing, would be disallowed by the courts, I think we have an absolute right to object, for here we are not interfering with the legitimate self-government of the Church; we are being made use of by the Church to allow it to do something which would otherwise be illegal and which I certainly believe to be immoral. If I can show to this House that this Measure does exactly that, and that it is oppressive of the rights of certain citizens, I hope that it will send it back to the Synod to look at it again.
Some of your Lordships who will be speaking today, and a large number of people outside this House, believe that this Measure is ill-conceived. Although I realise that this is a very difficult problem, I am broadly in sympathy with the aims of this Measure. I welcome the efforts of the Church, which the right reverend Prelate has so well described, to deploy its own resources to the best possible advantage. As a member of the Church Assembly, as a religious journalist and as what I might call an ecclesiastical activist, I have campaigned on that side of the argument for a large number of years. Therefore, it is all the more painful to me that this Measure contains one matter which I would not fight for, and which I must oppose; that is, it removes from present incumbents, during their own incumbency, their right to the ownership of the glebe land which was inalienably, as all thought then, bestowed on them when they were inducted into their benefices.
I do not believe there is any need at all for this. When it was first put forward, the original scheme allowed incumbents to opt out for the period of time when they had their benefices, and the glebe land would naturally fall in before the next incumbent took over. It may be argued that that would still have been unjust to the parishes, but, nevertheless, there was then no injustice done to an incumbent who had been given the ownership of this land. That, indeed, was what happened when, as has been quoted before, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners took over the land of the Bishops and other land in the last century. Individual Bishops were given the right to opt out until their tenure of the See ended.
We have not really been told why this has been done, why it has been neglected to put in a clause, as was originally suggested, to the effect that incumbents could opt out of their own right, and I suggest that it is merely for administrative tidiness. So far as I can see, there is no precedent for such a thing in the history of the Church. I am told, indeed, that even when the Dissolution of the Monasteries occurred, there was a voluntary deed of surrender on behalf of the abbot or prior concerned. What pressure was used to exact this voluntary deed, I do not think we need go into. But, at least the forms of law appear to have been preserved on that occasion, and I think we are entitled to know why ownership of the glebe may not transfer as incumbencies fall in.
I am quite prepared to be told that this is a very small point, and obviously to a large number of people it is. The Ecclesiastical Committee—I think rather unfortunately—did not even consider it. We shall be told that there is very little glebe, and that is true. We shall be told that most incumbents would prefer to get rid of it. I am sure that some of them do. We do not know how many, because they have not, on the whole, been asked; at least, those who have written to me to protest about this Measure have told me that. We are told that they receive compensation. They receive money for money, and I am the first to acknowledge the fairness of the monetary considerations the Church has laid down in putting forward this Measure. But those of them whose pride and pleasure it has been to have a stake in the country, and to have the ownership of some of the land going with their parish, receive nothing for that. Indeed, there cannot be any monetary compensation for that pride and pleasure and that link with the countryside being taken away from them, out of the blue, in the middle of their incumbency, which, as I said, was given to them inalienably when they were inducted.
We may well be told that to send a Measure back for such a small matter would cause chaos, but I think that that can be easily overstated. It is one small matter to which I am objecting and, although it means that the Measure would have to go through many stages again, it would presumably be able to go through them rather quickly. But, even if it

1051
were true that it would cause a lot of trouble, I do not think it would matter; for what are we here for? We are not an instrument of the bureaucracy of either Church or State. Among our duties as part of the High Court of Parliament, one of the most important is the protection of the rights of individuals, no matter how few those individuals are, no matter how unimportant their rights may seem to us, no matter how worthy are the people who are expropriating them, no matter how inconvenient our actions may be; for if we do not protect the individual rights of these people nobody else will. My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Moved, as an Amendment to the above Motion, to leave out all the words after ("House") and insert ("declines to direct that the Endowments and Glebe Measure be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent on the ground that, contrary to natural justice, it removes from certain incumbents the ownership of lands lawfully bestowed on them".).—(Lord Beaumont of Whitley.)
3.31 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for his lucid account of this Glebe Measure in moving the resolution for its approval. I may not be so progressive as the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, but should like to assure the right reverend Prelate of my support for the Measure and I hope to persuade other noble Lords on all sides of the House also to give their support to the right reverend Prelate.
It is true that there have been objections to this Measure and that they have taken three main forms. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, has voiced some of the objections, but they all lack substance. The first group of objections is that the Measure is in some sense unfair to existing incumbents. My answer to that, one which has already been expressed in much greater detail by the right reverend Prelate, is that no existing incumbent will suffer any loss of benefice income as a result of this Measure. That is stated categorically in paragraph 8(4) of the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee on the Measure, and precisely how effect is to be given to it.
1052
Secondly, it is not by any means the case that all incumbents have always received in the past the benefits of all rents, sales and other transactions in glebe, for orders diverting some of the proceeds from transactions in glebe land from the benefice to diocesan boards of finance have frequently been made for many years, most recently under the Pastoral Measure. Therefore in so far as there might be some diversion—and in this case no diversion will result in an existing incumbent suffering a reduction in income—certainly it is not breaking fresh ground to divert the proceeds from glebe land to somebody other than the incumbent.
The second group of objections is that here we are witnessing signs of the parochial system being swept away in favour of a centralised bureaucracy. Like the right reverend Prelate, and not being all that progressive, I am sorry to see an historic, albeit archaic institution, falling into desuetude. But the Churches are not meant to be museums of archaic institutions; they are supposed to serve and minister to all the citizens of the nation, wherever they may be, and this involves a change in the pattern of the parochial system from that laid down in mediaeval days. If the Churches are allowed to ossify into some past parochial system they cannot possibly serve the needs of the present. For that purpose changes are being made, and have been made for some years, in the financial arrangements from the centre and from the parish to the diocese.
These are the trends with which this Measure is concerned. That is not centralisation; it is concentration of the administration of the Churches' financial assets at the level of the diocesan boards of finance. The parochial system is not being swept away but, under the Pastoral Measure, carefully, deliberately and very gently adjusted to fit the 1970s and changed with a sensitiveness to consultation and participation, compared with which current secular practices in participation and consultation seem like the work of the veriest mogul or Mikado. The Churches simply cannot complain that too much is being done at too much of a rush with too little consultation.
In fact, the third body of objections is that in this case the consultation has been

1053
inadequate. That is not so. Once again, as the Ecclesiastical Report makes clear, what we see in this Measure was envisaged as long ago as 1967 when the report Partners in Ministry on the deployment of the clergy was published and issued to the Churches. Since then the report has been widely discussed at every level. The final step in respect of this Measure was a leaflet that was sent, with the authority of the General Synod, to every beneficed incumbent in July 1975, but between the publication of that report in 1967 and the issuing of a letter to every incumbent in 1975 there have been innumerable debates in the Synod and the Church Assembly.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, had quite a lot to say about the propriety or otherwise of Parliament interfering so as to overturn Measures which have already had the approval of the General Synod. Certainly our Constitution provides for that eventuality, but I should like your Lordships to consider whether this is a case when such a step would be justified. It might be justified if there were matters of very considerable concern both to Church and State regarding which, for example, the Houses of the General Synod had come to a conclusion only by the narrowest of majorities. However, in this case the final votes on this Measure took the following form: in the House of Bishops, 28 for, one against; in the House of clergy, 103 for, 19 against; in the House of Laity, 98 for, 14 against. I suggest that in the Houses of Parliament, where in another place at the moment legislation is being put on the Statute Book with tiny minorities, we cannot say that this is an issue upon which the Church has not clearly made up its mind.
For all those reasons, my Lords, I personally have no hesitation in supporting the resolution of the right reverend Prelate and I hope that many others of your Lordships will do likewise.
3.39 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, the Ecclesiastical Committee of which I am a member has passed the Measure which we are discussing today. Therefore I am not going to object to it in any practical way whatosever. But, before we pass it,
1054
I should like to put on record some of the things that I feel rather regretful about. One of the things I am chiefly against is the principle of pooling those gifts which are personal gifts. One has to remember the circumstances under which some of these gifts, although certainly not all of them, have been given. Land or money may have been given by someone who has been living in the parish perhaps for the whole of his or her life, who has a great love for it and who wishes to give some sign of what is felt to have been received from it. In such cases these are gifts not to the incumbent but to the parish, and that is one point which I feel nullifies the argument that the present incumbent is not going to suffer at all. It is the parish which is going to suffer.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way for a moment, will he also confirm that the gifts that he has just mentioned were not gifts to the diocese?
Lord SOMERS: No, my Lords; that is quite true, but the fact remains that the gifts are personal gifts. One can imagine, for instance, what would be thought of a Government that ordained that personal legacies left in one's will were all to be pooled and dealt out to the population as a whole. If I leave £1,000 to my godson or to my oldest friend, or something like that, is it going to be taken from him and pooled, so that out of the common pool everybody in the population can perhaps receive one half-penny? I think that principle in itself is wrong. Incidentally, although I have not really worked this out and so cannot say with authority what the result will be, I feel that the whole of the additional income when it is pooled is unlikely to add a very great deal to any one of the individual parishes throughout the country. Therefore, although I am not going to oppose this Measure, I feel that there are some aspects of it which are regrettable. I mentioned them when we discussed it in our Committee and I am glad to see that our noble and learned Chairman is with us today and is going to speak; perhaps he will allay my fears.
3.44 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I have a great respect for the sincerity with which the noble Lord,

1055
Lord Somers, has spoken, and I am sure we shall all agree it was right that that point of view should be put by a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee. I do not share it myself. It seems to me that he left out of account the wider purpose for the benefit of the Church and of religion in this country which the Measure seeks to serve. This is not an arbitrary act of depriving certain parishes of continuing income from endowments given to them long ago. On the contrary, as the Legislative Committee has explained, it is part of a general strategy of the Church of England to enable it to maintain a parochial system throughout the country that is suitable to modern needs.
I would venture to suggest that the urgency and importance of this has perhaps not been sufficiently stressed so far in this debate. It is quite clear that those who are responsible can no longer take it for granted that there will be enough money available for the Church to support an adequate array of parochial clergy to do the job that everybody connected with the Church of England, and many others, take it for granted should be done. After all, compulsory purchase, although it is odious when it affects oneself, can never be carried out unless Parliament has been satisfied that the further purpose for which the compulsory acquisition is sought is one that deserves the support of Parliament and will serve the interests of the country as a whole. If we had no system of compulsory purchase, it would, for example, be quite impossible to create a modern road system in this country. Indeed, compulsory purchase was first approved by Parliament in the days after the Great Fire of London, when it would have been impossible, if the exercise of compulsory purchase powers had not been permitted, to carry out the reconstruction that was required.
I am not a member of the General Synod nor the Ecclesiastical Committee; I have no special qualification to speak on this matter, and I have no vested interest in the progress of the Measure. I simply have an interest as an ordinary member of the Church of England in desiring to see the Church acting sensibly and taking whatever steps seem to be necessary to ensure that the continuance of an adequate parochial system for the whole country can be financed.
1056
I know the argument has been used although I do not think it was used by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the effect of the Measure will be to discourage further giving to the Church. So far as I am aware, for a good many years there has been relatively little giving by way of capital gifts for the augmentation of endowment incomes. That sort of money is seldom available now and, where it is, it will probably take the form of a gift for some immediate parochial purpose, such as the repair of the church roof or something else which is urgently needed for Church purposes in the parish, rather than the payment of a capital sum, the interest on which is intended to increase the endowment.
There was a good reason for capital gifts of that kind in olden days, when otherwise there might have been no adequate income to support a parson in the parish. That is now looked after by the Church Commissioners and the Diocesan Boards of Finance with the money that they have available for the purpose. That money however is not sufficient, and the Church therefore has a duty to consider how it can be augmented. I do not foresee any serious falling off of gifts of that kind as a result of this Measure. But if the Church is to attract from the laity all the additional money which it is quite clear will be required as the years go on, it must give the ordinary people of the country a double assurance; that is, the assurance that the money which the Church has is being put to the best possible use and the further assurance that the existing resources of the Church are being developed in the best possible way.
I think this Measure is intended to answer both those questions, although at the moment neither assurance could fairly be given. I believe that general public opinion is now against the degree of lack of uniformity of income which exists within the parochial system. The range may not be so wide as in Trollope's day, but it is still wide; there are still parochial clergy who are receiving two, three or four times the norm—though that norm itself may be relatively low—for responsibilities which are not exceptionally high in those particularly well-endowed parishes.

1057
As to the best development of its resources, I am quite certain that the existing system of glebe management by incumbents is not the most profitable way of making use, for the clergy, of the glebe asset which the Church possesses. We learn from these reports that at the moment glebe income amounts to just on £1,200,000 a year. From my limited knowledge, I venture to suggest that this amount of £1,200,000 a year could be very substantially increased if systematic management was introduced by the Church Commissioners and the diocesan authorities, as envisaged in this Measure. I find significant the fact that in seven dioceses there have been created voluntary schemes under which incumbents can hand over their glebe to be managed centrally by the diocese. This experience is already showing that glebe income can be materially increased by centralised diocesan management at relatively small extra cost in expenses.
My Lords, I know that there are some glebe-owning clergy who manage their glebes splendidly, and that no criticism can be made of them from whatever point of view, social or financial. But I think your Lordships will agree that these are a minority of the total number, nearly 5,000, of glebe-owning clergy. I am bound to say from my experience and knowledge that in a great many cases the glebe property is not handled and managed as sensibly, skilfully and farsightedly as it might be. Indeed, how should it be? When a man enters a theological college he is trained to assume his responsibility for the cure of souls in the parish to which he hopes one day to succeed; he is not trained to be a property manager, and although some people may thoroughly enjoy being property managers, it is surely not an essential part of the training of a clergyman. Consequently, I feel certain that the General Synod is right in believing that there is a considerable untapped resource here which the transfer of glebe to the diocesan boards of finance will secure, for the benefit of the parish clergy of that diocese generally.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, is taking objection to one single point. I hope he will forgive me for saying that the terms of his Amendment suggested, at any rate to me, that his objection to the Measure
1058
was much more broadly based. I see now that the one point which he wished to establish in our minds was that permission should be granted to existing glebe owners, if they so wished, to retain the management of their own glebe for the rest of their incumbency, or until such time as they might freely wish to hand it over. This is an interesting idea. I confess I was not aware that this is what happened in the last century in the case of the bishoprics. But trying to interpret this suggestion in practical terms now, it seems to me that it would put a very considerable brake on the speed with which the diocesan boards of finance could proceed with making more systematic and intelligent the management of the glebe which they were taking over.
In each diocese, the board would have to proceed with the knowledge that in a number of parishes they could not plan to touch any of the glebe in any way, by way of sale for example, until the existing incumbent died or retired. It would be impossible to forecast how long that time would last, and consequently they would be taxed with the unfortunate task of seeking to establish well-devised diocesan machinery for making the best use of all the glebe within the diocese, while being excluded from considering or touching a certain amount of glebe scattered somewhat arbitrarily among a number of parishes, which might revert to them at some unknown dates in the future. If we are taking seriously the need of the Church for more money, I do not really think we ought to envisage that kind of sacrifice of income and possibly capital, although I wish in no way to criticise the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, for calling the attention of the House to what is being done.
My Lords, I am not one of those who think that Parliament automatically should endorse every Measure sent forward by the General Synod. I believe that in your Lordships' House we missed a point with regard to a recent Measure which was subsequently rejected by another place because it failed to give personal right of appearance to incumbents who might be affected by it. Having said that, I must add that the figures which have been given this afternoon for the majorities by which this Measure was passed in all three Houses, the House of Bishops, the House

1059
of Clergy and the House of Laity, must be taken into account and carefully weighed by your Lordships, because, except for the most urgent reason, it would certainly not be for us in this House to act arbitrarily and send back a Measure which received such wide support in the General Synod. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I do not think his argument adds up to that, and therefore I shall support the Measure so brilliantly introduced by the right reverend Prelate.
3.58 p.m.
Lord CROSS of CHELSEA: My Lords, as chairman of the Ecclesiastical Committee, it is perhaps proper that I should say a few words on this Motion. Most of the Measures which come up to us from the General Synod for consideration are uncontroversial. The Measure which is the subject of the next Motion on your Lordships' Order Paper, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure is a wholly uncontroversial Measure. In such cases, the report of the Ecclesiastical Committee simply sets out the effect of the Measure and recommends to Parliament that Parliament give its approval to it. But this Measure is a highly controversial one. The Ecclesiastical Committee received over 100 written representations against it.
In those circumstances, we thought it right to make a detailed report setting out the arguments for and against the Measure as we understood it, and, in appendices, also including supporting figures explaining the position. Of course, that procedure involved a great expenditure of time. The Committee had to sit on three days. It also involved the clerks of the Committee and, if I may be permitted to say so, also the chairman of the Committee, in some additional work. But I hope that your Lordships will think that the time was well spent, because I do not see how your Lordships' House can debate a controversial Measure of this sort without the material provided by a report such as we put in.
My Lords, before I come to the details of the Measure, I should like to say a word on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, as to the approach which we in Parliament should take in considering whether to approve or not
1060
approve a Measure. The enabling Act in 1919 gave the Church Assembly, which, of course, is now the General Synod, general legislative powers over matters affecting the Church of England, subject to the approval of Parliament. In those circumstances, it seems to me, as I think it seemed to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that one should not simply ask oneself, "If I was a member of the General Synod, would I myself have voted in favour of this Measure?". That does not seem to me to be the proper approach at all. When a Measure has passed in the Synod, and especially by such huge majorities as in this case, there is a heavy onus on anyone who says that Parliament should reject it. One can conceive of cases where some measure, on grounds of principle, although passed by the General Synod, ought not to receive the approval of Parliament. But I do think that a strong case has to be made out.
Coming to the details of the Measure, I think one should distinguish—at least I found it useful to distinguish—between, first of all, the part of the Measure which provides for the management of glebes, the negotiation of leases and the effecting of sales, being transferred from the individual incumbent to the diocesan boards of finance, and the part of the Measure which provides for the pooling of all the rents of glebe and of the endowments of individual parishes vested in the Church Commissioners, the pooling of all that income at the centre.
So far as the management goes, undoubtedly, as my noble friend Lord Brooke has said, the evidence shows that there are some clergymen who enjoy managing their glebe and manage it very well, and they, naturally—and one can sympathise with them—do not like the prospect of their rights of management coming to an end. On the other hand, the evidence showed very clearly that there were many clergy who found it a nuisance to manage their glebe, and there were some at least who managed it very badly. In many dioceses there are voluntary schemes in operation under which individual incumbents can provide for their glebe being managed during their incumbency by the diocesan authorities. Those schemes seem to work successfully and a great deal of glebe in dioceses is being so managed.

1061
One case see the force of the argument, why not let that system continue? Gradually, more and more glebe will come to be managed centrally under these voluntary arrangements, and those clergy who like managing their glebe can continue to do so. One can see, on the other hand, that the existence of two parallel systems of management, parcels of glebe passing oil changes of incumbent from management by the incumbent to management by the voluntary body, would be unsatisfactory. It is a question of balancing advantages against disadvantages. The General Synod has decided emphatically in favour of central management.
My noble friend Lord George-Brown says, perhaps quite rightly, that I should say "Synod", but the pronunciation "Synod" has been used throughout the sittings of the Committee, and without going into the right and wrongs of it I shall continue to say "Sinod". I think this question of management is emphatically one which does not raise any question of principle, and it would be quite wrong, whatever one's personal view, to take a view different from that taken by the General Synod.
I come now to the question of the pooling of the income of parish endowments and the rents of glebe. That seems to me to raise a more difficult question. The present position, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, is that under the Pastoral Measure schemes can be made diverting surplus income from parishes for use in other ways. But I would emphasise that under the Pastoral Measure it is only surplus income that can be treated in that way. There are a few parishes still left where the income enjoyed by the incumbent is, on any fair view, excessive or surplus—very much larger, shall I put it, than the ordinary diocesan average.
Orders can be made under the Pastoral Measure diverting that income. But, of course, the point which was made by the objectors to this Measure is that the Measure goes much further than that, because it deals with the pooling of income which is not in any sense surplus to the requirements of the parish. Supposing, for example, a parish has endowment income of, shall I say, £2,200, the diocesan minimum being £2,500. There
1062
is obviously no surplus income there which could be diverted under an order made under the Pastoral Measure. But under this Measure that endowment income will be taken away and replaced by the guaranteed annuity of £1,000 a year to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
That sort of parish, of course, objects very strongly to the Measure and says that it is being deprived of an advantage, the possession of an income which it can offer to a clergyman, which might enable it to maintain its independence. The answer given to that by the witnesses of the General Synod and the answer given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is that it does not really make any difference to a parish whether it has an endowment income or not quoad its continued existence as an independent parish.
When the Pastoral Committee and the Bishop and the Church Commissioners have to consider whether or not to make a scheme amalgamating the parish with another parish they will not, the witnesses said quite clearly, as the right reverend Prelate said too, take into account the possession by the parish of an independent income. So although cannot help having considerable sympathy with parishes in the position I have described, on balance I think that there is no question of principle at issue, and as the General Synod has passed this Measure by such large majorities I would urge your Lordships to approve it.
4.7 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I was very glad to read in one of the leaflets distributed by the General Synod that they declared their present strategy to be to maintain the countrywide ministry. All sincere churchmen must be concerned with the maintenance of the countrywide ministry, which covers the recruiting, the pay and the deployment of the ordained clergy; and in so doing they must not forget the interests of all the Christian people who make up their regular congregations and beyond, who together make up the Church.
When looking at this problem it is all too easy to say that it is wrong that some parishes should be endowed generously, or perhaps less so, with glebe and

1063
other resources, while others, particularly new centres of population, should not have those advantages. But it is wrong to assume that up till today there has been no effort in the Church to be fair as between parishes. For long enough there have been augmentation funds which were intended to bring those parishes with small endowments up to a level which was accepted within the different dioceses. If it applies to parishes as well as to men that "those to whom much is given of them shall much be required", I would entirely agree. But I am disturbed when I see this new and egalitarian spirit which seems to have taken over one side of the Church's leadership. The new policy could be described as robbing Peter to pay Paul and the bureaucratic approach is disturbing, not least because the Anglican Church's administration is extremely complicated and its bureaucrats are very slow-moving.
The small parish in Cumberland where I live had trouble with its endowment in the Middle Ages and it appealed to the Council of Constance; I think it was in the early 15th century. We got a reply. Something similar happened recently and, while we have tried very hard to get the information, we are still waiting after 2½ years. Even allowing for the fact that the postal arrangements are sluggish today, that is overlong. With regard to the management of the glebe, which the noble Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, mentioned, as a former land agent I entirely agree that the management of glebe in the hands of an individual priest can present a problem which he is ill-equipped to handle. But if one does not want to take responsibility for glebe, I cannot see why it is so difficult for a successor who is interested to take over once again from the more central controlling office.
It is not reasonable to suppose that all parsons should handle the glebe, since the management of land can be a highly technical business, especially when there are buildings on the glebe. But I should have thought there was still merit in a country priest taking a real interest in the glebe if he felt so inclined and competent to farm it himself. To take away the glebe for all time in return for what is called "a guaranteed annuity" seems to me something different and there is no mention, so far as I can find, in any of
1064
these reports of what happens when the value of money changes. What we are asking incumbents to do is to exchange real property for a guaranteed annuity which has about the same value as undated Government stock. If it is intended that these annuities should be uprated in any way in accordance with any drop in the value of money, I hope that the right reverend Prelate will tell us when he comes to reply. I do not really think that all this is moving from the 19th into the 20th century, as he said in his opening speech.
I was very glad to hear the noble Lord opposite draw attention to the Christian people of old who gave endowments not to the diocese but to particular parishes and districts—often very scattered, often very poor districts—where the donors wanted the Christian message to be preached, and a church where Christians could meet. Now this is to be undermined because not only, as I said, is this Measure robbing Peter to pay Paul; it is going to mean robbing the country to pay the towns. If recent central Governments have set a bad example of this I do not think that that is a good reason why the Church should follow it, even though it may try to justify it by saying that it is not breaking new ground.
We have all had experience of group parishes and most of us would agree that such groups are likely to get larger, and the services in these remote churches fewer. I have often thought about what would happen over the years in the parish where I am a church warden. We are now one of a group of three, and in the course of time we may be part of a larger group. Then there could well be a move to close a small church like ours, which like many others, was founded and endowed in the Middle Ages. With the profits of our glebe I believe that the parishioners and church wardens together would not find it so difficult to maintain the building and regular services. Without the glebe it would be very much harder.
The arguments behind this Measure—and we have heard them this afternoon from several noble Lords—seem to me too facile. The life of the church in country districts is not likely to be strengthened by this Measure, not least because there are two important questions that have not yet been touched on. First, what is

1065
to be the future of the parson's freehold? I believe it is crying out for some amendment, and it is a question that cannot be entirely detached from the issues we are debating this afternoon. Secondly, what greater part should the church warden and other laymen be encouraged to take in the holding of our regular services? I do not mean preach, my Lords; most laymen do not want to preach—although sometimes they might do it better. But there are many who feel that they could do more if only the lead were given; but the result of this Measure, I fear, will be that they will be encouraged to do less.
4.16 p.m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, will your Lordships forgive me for speaking before the right reverend Prelate replies. I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Cross of Chelsea, whether he was in fact speaking for a committee which my secretary insists on calling "The Eccles Committee" and I keep saying is the "Ecclesiastical Committee". We meet in the Moses Room. He said perfectly fairly that he was speaking for himself, which leaves me free to say that during the course of consideration of this Measure in the Ecclesiastical Committee, which is a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, I was in fact an objector. I think it would be unfair if I did not make it clear that I am still an objector, as a member of the Anglican Church, for reasons which seem tome to be fairly strong.
I agree in part with the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and in part not; I agree in part with other objectors, and in part not. We will leave out the personal argument as to whether the Church is more involved in "sin" and therefore insist upon calling it the "Sin.od", whereas I, as a classical scholar, insist that it is really called "Sie.nod". We will leave all that on one side. The real issue is one which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, brought up at the beginning of his argument. If we wipe out the rights of parishes to use their income for the reasons they think are right, I must say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London (who is, I should think, the outstanding bureaucrat in the Church) that we are in fact doing what every bureaucrat everywhere wants to do; as in the Labour Party, as in the trade unions, as in the Church
1066
of England—hand it all over to Jack Jones, Ron Hayward, or the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and all will be well. The fact of the matter is that all is not well. It just becomes a bureaucrat's paradise.
If we down there in Jevington in Sussex, like the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, up there in Cumberland in some distant place I know not of, wish to do it our way, why, for simple, mathematical, bureaucratic reasons should some fellows down here tell us, Nay? They will take this over from us; they will take the money away; they will give us whatever, and then the next thing is that they will close our church and merge it with the next one, and it is all beautifully done according to books. But, like the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, I think you preach Christ to people, and you have to go where people are. If somebody long since past left us some money which we can use for that purpose, why—I was going to say "why the devil", but even looking at the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London I think that is possibly exaggerating—should we not be allowed to do it the way we, the laymen (and this is a layman's Church; even though I call myself a Catholic, one of the differences between us and the Romans is that this is a layman's Church), have done it and the way we still try to do it?
I am unrepentant in that I was about the only one who voted against the Measure all the way through. I should tell noble Lords that I still think that it is wrong. I still think that what will be achieved by doing what the Measure provides is so little that we might just as well leave matters alone. By doing what is proposed, we shall be failing to do the real thing, which is to persuade Anglican churchmen like me that we have to support our Church out of our own funds. This looks like a way round it, but it is not; it misleads people. I am, for all sorts of reasons, with which I will not burden your Lordships now, against this, mostly because what it will achieve will be so little and because it will be so misleading. Of course the Bishops—at least those who are bureaucratic Bishops—will be so pleased to have got something through, but what they should be doing is facing we laymen in the Church with what we should do. I beg noble Lords' pardon for interrupting.
4.22 p.m.
The LORD BISHOP of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, my intervention will be very brief, and I would not intervene at all were it not for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, may have given the impression that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London stands alone as the bureaucrat of the Church of England. I would tell your Lordships that the right reverend Prelate represents I think all of us except one so far as voting is concerned, and that he has expressed the views of the majority of the Bishops: not only of them, but of the majority of the clergy and the majority of the laity. Many hours of time, thought and prayer have been given to this matter, and there has been an overwhelming vote in all three Houses in the General Synod in favour.
It so happens that in my diocese there is an interesting mixture at which perhaps some of your Lordships might be surprised. One probably thinks of Southwark in terms of Battersea, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe and Deptford, or the concrete city where I am going this evening; namely, Thamesmead, but I also have two little village churches in the Surrey Hills which, I think, are still lit by candles and oil lamps; I suspect that they will soon be the only churches which can afford to have lighting. I was in one of these parishes quite recently when I asked the rector about his glebe, and he said, "I am not quite sure—the parish goes back hundreds of years—whether it is 11 acres or more or perhaps less. There are two fields here where they are claiming squatter's rights". He added, "Nobody who has known anything about the management of land has been here for years". That is one half of the diocese, and then there is the other half—places like the concrete city of Thamesmead. The rector of that parish was certain that the Measure was right and would get the matter on a sound and sensible basis.
Thus, as the Bishop of a diocese who sees both sides—little parishes and vast modern housing estates—and as one who sees the needs of the people and sees (I hope the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, will believe me) the desperate need of proclaiming the Gospel to all sorts and conditions of men, I believe that the Measure to which the right reverend
1068
Prelate the Bishop of London has spoken will go a long way to meet the needs of the Church of England. I shall support it and I hope that noble Lords will support it, too.
4.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I am sure that all of us who sit on these Benches and all who care for the welfare of the Church of England will be deeply grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, even though they may disagree with the terms of the Measure. It is, indeed, encouraging that these matters are cared for in the way that is illustrated by this debate, and we are grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. Perhaps I may come at the end of my reply to the points which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. I wish, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, very much for his sympathetic and understanding statement about the meaning and purpose of the Measure.
I am sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said is something that moves us all very much, and indeed I mentioned those very points in my opening speech. But he will know—because he was a member of the Ecclesiastical Committee—how very small a part of the endowments of the clergy come from individual gifts. As noble Lords will see in Appendix 4, of the original of Benefice Endowment Income payable by the Church Commissioners, the total is £7,300,000 of which only £800,000 consists of gifts and bequests paid over to the Commissioners and to their predecessors since 1704. It is a very small amount of the total available for the endowment of the clergy that comes from these small individual gifts. Moveover, he will know that if in the future any individual wishes to give an endowment to a parish by private trust, it will be open to individuals to do that and such money will not be involved in these schemes.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, made a very important speech and I think and hope that his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will meet many of the objections. The Church of England must have a general strategy for the payment of the clergy if it is to be able to pay a living stipend to them, and these are

1069
endowments for the benefit of the whole Church. It is the responsibility of the Church to see that those endowments are used as correctly and as well as possible. Moreover, Lord Brooke made a very important point when he said that in these days when people want to help the Church they will not do it by capital endowment but by direct giving year by year. This is the way in which the Church is being helped at the moment. This is the way in which the Church has most courageously met the enormous challenge of inflation; namely, by direct giving. This is what the Church believes to be right and this is what the pattern will be in the future.
I am very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Cross of Chelsea for the sympathetic way with which he dealt with the many objections that the Committee had to deal with. There is, in fact, no advantage to a parish to have large endowments these days, because only but a very few have sufficient endowments to meet the modest standard of £2,400 a year which, again, has got to go up this year and which, again, will go up next year if we are to keep pace with inflation.
I am sure that we were all very much moved by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, speaking from a country parish. I would assure him that the question of the distribution of the very limited number of clergy is not a matter of money but of pastoral policy and, therefore, the way that the noble Lord should see that his parish is protected is by seeing that the pastoral committee of his own diocese is acquainted with the needs. If it is decided by the diocese through its pastoral committee that a particular parish should continue, then he can be assured that the diocese is under an obligation to see that that clergyman is properly paid. The fact that there are large or small endowments will riot make any difference because we shall very soon have run up to the standards of even the highest endowments which are still left and we are still making up the lower ones.
The noble Lord put two particular points to me: the first concerned the future of the parson's freehold. I hope that what I have said indicates that this Measure does not affect the parson's freehold. What is happening throughout the Church
1070
is that, with union of benefices, with group and team ministries and so on, the parson's freehold is becoming less and less important. I have always been a great upholder of the parson's freehold, but I believe that if the noble Lord were to consult especially the younger clergy he would find that they do not attach as much importance to this as do clergymen of my generation.
The noble Lord also asked about the use of churchwardens to take services. More and more shall we have to use the services of laymen or of people who are ordained to what is called the auxiliary pastoral ministry—men who are earning their living in the secular world but who are ordained to the priesthood and are able to minister to congregations. The office of Reader is a very important one and women are ordained to that office. There are the deaconesses who help very greatly throughout the Church. I am sure that more and more the ministry of lay people to augment that of the clergy will become of increasing importance.
The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, made a fighting speech. I only wish that, if he feels so strongly about these things, he would stand for membership of the General Synod and there make these important points rather than making them at this late stage. The General Synod of the Church of England sometimes needs a certain amount of liveliness, and I am sure that if the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, were a member of the General Synod he would contribute greatly to its life and vitality. However, the noble Lord kept using a phrase which is simply not true. He spoke of, "If we wipe out the right of the parish to use its income as it wishes". We are not talking about the income of the parish. All we are talking about is what belongs to an individual benefice. This is money which belongs to the clergy and, even if it were available in some other way, it would not be available to the parish to do what it thinks right because it is the property of the benefice.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate used a rather dangerous phrase. He said that I had said something that was "simply not true", In the mouth of a Prelate, that is a very dangerous remark. Now the right reverend Prelate is, if I may say so, equivocating

1071
between a parish and a benefice. In fact, it is for the benefit, the right reverend Prelate might like to say of the benefice and I might like to say of the parish. But does he really mean that I am saying something that is not true when I assert that that money was for that parish?
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I am sorry if I have hurt the noble Lord's feelings and I immediately withdraw if he feels that I have said he has said something which is not true. However, I believe that it was a verbal inaccuracy and it may be because we do not exactly understand the terms we are using. The word "benefice" means the clergyman and what attaches to his office as clergyman. And, when we are talking about endowment and glebe income, we are talking about money which is attached to the person of the incumbent. It is not, therefore, open to the parish to have any say as to the way in which that particular area of Church finance is administered.
May I finally come to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, and to his Amendment. I believe that we must use the words "natural justice" in their direct terms, because it is important to recognise that Parliament has the right, by legislation, to remove from people something which they possess. It has done this generally in secular legislation and it has frequently done it in ecclesiastical legislation. The noble Lord makes the point that in "an earlier draft of the Measure "—I believe that those were the words he used—some discretion was given. I do not know to what he is referring. My advice is that there was no mention of this in any of the official documents. Partners in Ministry was going to provide for a transfer of existing owners to a central authority, not to the diocese. It is the Terms of Ministry Committee which provided for a glebe to go to the diocese and, as far as I know, no draft of the Measure ever provided for this alternative scheme whereby some clergymen could opt in and some out. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell me about that.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I apologise if I used the term "draft" Measure. I think I said, "when the matter was first discussed". In 1960, when the matter was discussed, and
1072
particularly when it was discussed in a debate in the House of Clergy, admittedly the scheme was a very different one because it was then to go to a central authority to be administered by the Church Commissioners, if they would undertake to take it on. But, at that stage, it was specifically said that, if such a scheme were to go through, there would be an option for incumbents to opt out. Between then and now there was a twilight period when I believe many people assumed that that assurance still held good. Latterly, it has been quite clear that it did not, but it has never been made at all clear why what was regarded by the authorities in 1960 as just, right and a proper thing to do to help incumbents should have been withdrawn in the period since.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. However, that was 16 years ago, in a very different situation and with a different scheme. I hope the noble Lord will forgive me for thinking that he gave the impression that we had been discussing this particular option in relation to the present Measure. I am glad to know that that is not the case. All that is being taken away from clergymen who at the moment have glebe is the right to manage it. As I have already pointed out, they will get the income from it from different sources; they will not get the augmentation that may come since, if it was a very considerable amount, it would be removed by a diversionary order in any case. So it is really only the management of glebe that the noble Lord appears to be raising.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, regarding the £1,000 a year, when inflation is at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum, the value of £1,000 is halved in ten years: is there any plan for making up that figure? The rental value of the land is likely to increase whereas the other will not.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, these sums will be held by the Church Commissioners and will be disbursed as they have to do by Statute to the dioceses for the use of their Diocesan Stipend Fund. Therefore, if there is a decrease in the value of money, the increase will presumably be within the

1073
funds held and administered by the Church Commissioners and will come back to the diocese in a different way for the use of the whole diocese.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that I had not described the advantages of the pooling of glebe. I can do so very quickly. For the first time the Church will have a full record of this important asset which helps it to provide clergy stipends. Secondly, there will be less risk of glebe being lost, as it has been, because of inadequate local records and because of successive incumbents losing touch with their tenants. This has happened, and it is obviously something we want to avoid. Thirdly, clergy stipends as a whole and the holders of glebe in particular will benefit from realising the true potential of glebe, both as regards its true rental and its market capital value when this is realised. There are always great difficulties for the clergy when they are administering their glebe.
I can speak from my experience when I was Bishop of Chester. There were some clergy who had glebe in the South of Cheshire, and those of you who know that delectable part of the country will know how magnificent is the fertility of the soil. Some ten years ago it was fetching in the region of £10 an acre per year. Now it fetches very much more. I remember a particular case in which the glebe was let to the churchwarden for about 30 shillings an acre, and the vicar did not like to tell his churchwarden that he ought to be paying more because he feared that there would be difficulty of relationships between the two. Therefore the Church was losing out on the value of a very proper asset. By getting the administration of glebe into the hands of the diocese—and not the Church Commissioners or anything as impersonal as that—one will be able to see that these matters are administered properly.
Fourthly, I remind your Lordships that over 90 per cent. of clergy who have glebe have to have their benefice income augmented in any case. With regard to my last point, from the general point of view I again make the point that, if we are to ask the laity to give generously, they are entitled to expect of us that the assets of the Church will be used wisely and profitably. As regards the incumbent,
1074
he himself will be guaranteed his existing income from the glebe irrespective of future expenditure made or required of him for repairs and improvements of his glebe. He will receive that income in regular monthly payments, instead of in arrears, on due dates (probably half-yearly) and he will not have to worry about late payment of rents or non-payment, as frequently happens.
Finally, he will not be caught up in financial arguments with tenants, who may be parishioners, in respect of regular rent reviews and the carrying out of repairs and improvements, and indeed in what may involve him in legal transactions. Therefore I hope that your Lordships will feel that these provisions are to the benefit of the clergy as a whole, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, may feel that he can withdraw his Amendment.
4.44 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I think your Lordships will agree that the debate has produced an extremely interesting and useful discussion about some of the wider aspects of this Measure. In particular, I think we are very privileged to have heard the views of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, because what they are saying represents a very important voice which is not now a very fashionable one. When I was a member of the Church Assembly their voices were in the majority. They are no longer so, as we can see by the votes which have gone to this Measure. But I still think that what they are saying is of immense importance and it has seldom been said so well as it has been in your Lordships' House this afternoon.
I still think that, by and large, this Measure is right. I still think that, by and large, their views are mistaken, but I must confess that I am no longer as sure that I am right as I used to be 10 or 12 years ago. The whole organisation of the Church and the whole question of the bureaucracy of the Church needs great examination; I will not say "greater" examination, because I know that the Church is involved in this in a very great way. But this question needs great examination. I tend to think that one of the key answers is to have much more and much smaller dioceses and that that would

1075
do away with much of the distrust between the bishop and the parishes which still unfortunately exists. But that is by the way.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, if my Amendment was drafted rather misleadingly. My only excuse is that I had a great deal of difficulty in drafting it at all, and I am sorry if it went too wide. I thank the noble Lord for his very wise and very generous contribution to the debate. I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, had to say. The only point which rather baffled me was why his vote was not going to follow his voice, seeing that it did in the Ecclesiastical Committee. I hope that this does not presage a new doctrine of the collective responsibility for the Ecclesiastical Committee and that, once it has put forward a collective decision, all its members must abide by it. I say this because we must remember that in the Ecclesiastical Committee there was a singificant vote against saying that this Measure should go forward.
I turn to the arguments about the point which I was specifically putting forward. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has answered—or at least largely answered—the point about what happened to the original 1960 suggestion that incumbents should be able to opt out. I still have not been given a reason why they should not be allowed to opt out now. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that it would make for extreme administrative difficulty, seems to be overstated. Anyone who has to manage land is quite aware that if he takes up a policy of taking land in hand—as the phrase is—he may have to take it in by dribs and drabs over a period of time. That is not tidy, but neither is land nor its administration tidy; nor should it be so.
I was enormously disappointed over the feeling that if people were compensated by money for the money they would get from the income of their glebe that was enough and they suffered no loss. This was put most starkly in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I think it very strange that in your Lordships' House, where there are so many people who are attached to the land, who have
1076
heritage and who understand the traditions of land and of the Church, we should not realise that when we take away the management of the glebe—or I would go further and say the actual concept of ownership of the glebe—we are taking away something which may be valued extremely, and judging by the letters of my correspondents, who are incumbents managing glebe, is valued very highly. I am very disappointed indeed that the Church should not have gone out of its way—even what I should have thought would be just a little—to see that the present incumbents were not treated in this way.
Nevertheless, I realise that this is a Measure which has the overwhelming support of the Church as a whole, because whether or not we agree with it there were enormous consultations and there were overwhelming votes. I still think that the point I have made was worth making. I still regret that I have not received enough support in your Lordships' House, but it is quite clear that I have not. Therefore in begging the leave of your Lordships to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name I should merely like to say that I wish the Measure as a whole well and I hope that it will go some way to help the work of the underpaid, underprivileged and overworked clergy of this country.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Goschen): Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: No, my Lords.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think the Contents have it—I will put the Question again. Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: No, my Lords.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, your Lordships will forgive me if I am wrong—and I hope we may get some guidance on this matter—but my understanding is that, although I asked for my Amendment to be withdrawn, if any noble Lord wishes it not to be withdrawn it should stand and be voted on: and I would certainly not seek to refuse

1077
the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, that right if he so wishes.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I think the appropriate next Question would be, That this Amendment be agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Question is, That this Amendment be agreed to.
Division called.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, Tellers for the Contents have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Not-Contents have it.
Amendment negatived accordingly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) MEASURE
4.55 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON The Lord Bishop of LONDON rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I now have to ask your Lordships to give an Affirmative Resolution to the Church of England (Miscelleneous Provisions) Measure—a very different kettle of fish from that which we have been examining during the last two hours. This is an omnibus Measure because, as we are very well aware in the General Synod, it is very irritating for your Lordships' House to have a stream of very small Measures dealing with unimportant points. Therefore, we have kept them and put them all together in this one Measure. I do not think that any of the points is controversial, and I hope that your Lordships will not think so.
The first clause gives legal power to dispense with certain legal statements that have to be made, either when a man is about to be ordained or at the time when he is instituted. Thus, for instance,
1078
one of the things that is required is what is known as Si Quis, which is a document which has to be read in the parish of the man who is being ordained in order to discover whether there is anybody there who knows of any impediment against his ordination. Nowadays, when we have such very careful training and selection of men for the ordained ministry, when it is known who they are and when they have been through the mill of examination, it is really no longer necessary that that document should be solemnly read.
Again, there is another very mysterious declaration which a clergyman has to make before he can be licensed or instituted, which is called the declaration against simony. It is an exceedingly complicated legal document, and, in fact, is so unintelligible that most bishops require that it should be said in the presence of the churchwardens in the vestry before the service, because it really does not conduce to a worshipful atmosphere within church. I believe that it was originally required to prevent clergymen buying themselves into a particular post, or otherwise to prevent a father from buying a rich advowson when his son was born and putting someone in on the clear understanding that in 23 years or more he would resign, and then putting his son in, where he would enjoy for the rest of his life the emoluments of the benefice. I know of no other employment (though there may be one) in which the person who is about to be appointed has to make a solemn statement that he has not got the job by any underhand or improper means; and it seems to be rather strange that a clergyman, whom one would expect to have reasonable standards of behaviour, should be required to make this solemn statement.
Clause 2 clears away a doubtful point as to whether a bishop is legally entitled to license a clergyman for a limited period as for an unlimited period. There are some posts to which he might want to ask a clergyman to go for a limited period of time, and all that this clause does is to give the bishop power to set a term to the licence.
The third clause extends the area in which a bishop can delegate his authority when he is ill or when he is absent from his diocese. There are certain occasions when it is valuable that he should be able to give what we might call a power of

1079
attorney to somebody else, but there are certain things which a diocesan bishop alone can do, and this extends the power whereby be can delegate his authority. Moreover, if the Archbishop cannot act then this clause gives the senior bishop of the province power to appoint a person as a deputy to a diocesan bishop—and, as I am the senior in the Province of Canterbury, I can assure your Lordships that I have no personal interest in this particular clause.
Clause 4 removes the legal obligation which some cathedral statutes lay upon the bishop to conduct a formal visitation of his cathedral from time to time. Some statutes do not lay any sort of obligation of this kind; others say that the bishop "shall" conduct a visitation of his cathedral, say, every three years. I believe that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Rochester is under one of these obligations. A formal visitation of a cathedral is a very complicated and sometimes very expensive operation. It may be necessary from time to time, but it is undesirable, in our view, that the bishop should have to conduct a visitation of his cathedral at stated intervals.
Clause 5 makes it possible where there is a vacancy, to allow the remuneration of lay workers as well as clerks in Holy Orders. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, is not here to hear that clause which is in favour, and to the advantage, of lay people. Clause 6 extends the right of burial in a churchyard not only to parishioners who are resident in the parish but also to parishioners who are there by virtue of being on the electoral roll. It sometimes happens that a person does not live in the parish but takes a full part in the life of the parish, and that his name is on the electoral role; and when he dies, his family would like him to be buried in the churchyard of the parish which he has served most of his life. This clause makes that legally possible. It also clears up some doubt as to who has the authority to allow other people who are not parishioners to be buried in the churchyard. The minister has to take general regard to the opinion of his parochial church council in giving a decision.
Finally, my Lords, we come to the Burnley Rectory Act of 1890 which ties the suffragan see of Burnley in the diocese
1080
of Blackburn to the parish of Burnley. If the Bishop of Blackburn wishes to have a suffragan bishop, one of his being the Bishop of Burnley, then he must also be the rector of Burnley. In these days the demands made on suffragan bishops are such that it is difficult for a suffragan bishop to have as well the charge of a big and important parish; so that this clause separates the rector of Burnley from the office of suffragan bishop. These are the matters contained in this miscellaneous provisions Measure, and I hope that they will meet with your Lordships' approval.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Church of England (Miscellaneous Provisions) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
5.3 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 read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
Clause 26 [Provisions supplementary to s.25]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 36, line 6, after ("authorised") insert ("in writing").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment designed to make subsection (1) of Clause 26 consistent with subsection (1) of Clause 24. Both subsections deal with the entry of authorised persons on to land in connection with the exercise of powers in the Bill (in the case of Clause 24 for the purpose of making a dangerous tree safe). It is clearly desirable that in both clauses the person

1081
entering on the land should not only be authorised but be authorised in writing.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 36, line 38, after ("shall") insert (", subject to the following subsection,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move Amendment No. 2 and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 3 (which is the substantive one) remedies a potential injustice regarding the compensation payable to persons having an interest in land on which works have been carried out to enclose dangerous excavations. Amendment No. 2 is consequential. The Amendment arises from discussions that have taken place between my Department and the Lord Chancellor's Office following the insertion of this clause at Report stage. Its purpose is to remedy a potential injustice where compensation to persons having an interest in land on which works have been carried out is concerned; for example, where the edge of the excavation comes so close to the boundary of the land in question that it is necessary to erect a fence on the adjoining land. The Amendment therefore has the effect of permitting compensation to be paid to a person having an interest in land, on which works are sited when the excavation itself is situated on other land.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to say to the noble Baroness that I think the Government have been a little sparse with their punctuation in these two Amendments. In subsection (3) we have no fewer than 145 words, or words and groups of either letters or figures running to only one semi-colon. Clearly, from the drafting point of view, it is difficult to draft it in any other way; otherwise the punctuation would have been put in for the benefit of those who use this particular clause. I feel it is difficult to read and I hope that the Government will observe my remarks in regard to breaking up sentences.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I shall pass on the noble Lord's remarks. I can only say that those people who will have to read those clauses will be used to this
1082
sort of language; but I sympathise with his point of view.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 36, leave out lines 43 to 45 and insert:
("( ) No compensation shall be payable by virtue of the preceding subsection, to any person having an interest in the site of the excavation in question, in respect of damage attributable to the presence of permanent works on any land other than damage attributable to interference with an easement or profit.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to,
Clause 27 [Alterations of supplemental provisions of Public Health Acts];
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 38, line 39, after ("295") insert (",section 313 ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, subsection (6) of Clause 27 makes it clear that the repeal by this Bill of Sections 295 and 314 of the Public Health Act 1936 does not affect any order made under those Sections which may still be in force. It is possible that orders made under Section 313, which is also repealed, may still exist and these should also be allowed to Continue. These orders amend or repeal local Acts as necessary on the passing of the Public Health Act 1936. Without the Amendment the repeal of Section 313 would allow them to lapse with the probable result that any amended local Act provision would revert to its original, unacceptable form. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Restoration or continuation of supply of water, gas or electricity]:
5.7 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 43, line 15, after ("council") insert ("if satisfied that the undertakers have given the occupier not less than three days' notice in writing of their intention to cut off the supply,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to the new clause inserted into the Bill—and for which I am enormously grateful. It is a clause which comes to the rescue in the limited class of case where a tenant has electricity, gas

1083
or water supplied to his premises paid for by him inclusive with his rent and his landlord defaults in payment of the electricity, gas or water bill. The innocent occupier, the tenant, has his supply of electricity gas or water cut off. This clause comes to his rescue in this limited case. At the Report stage a further Amendment was introduced by the Government which took care of these cases not only where there had been a cut-off but even where a cut-off was contemplated; so that the tenant could, in suitable cases, be rescued by the council without going through the tiresome procedure of cutting off the supply and reconnecting it.
This Amendment arises from the horror with which I learned from the speech of the noble Baroness in Committee—and although we have discussed this question since on Report, I still have this feeling of horror—that, since the contract is between the statutory undertaker and the landlord, there can still be cases where the tenant, the occupier, only discovers that something is wrong when he arrives home to find his gas, electricity or water supply actually has been cut off. It seems inhumane in a civilised country like this that a perfectly innocent person can arrive home to find that his electricity supply has been cut off without any warning that that was going to occur.
May I explain that the Amendment requires that a statutory undertaker in these cases shall give not less than three days' notice in writing of their intention to cut off the supply if they are to qualify themselves to recover payment from the local authority. One finds in the clause that the occupier, in order to avail himself of this opportunity to be rescued by the local authority when he suspects a cut off, has to give the local authority notice in writing that the electricity is about to be cut off. If he is to give the authority notice in writing, then as night follows day, he must be given notice that he is about to be cut off. What the noble Baroness said about this on Report stage is quoted at column 203 of Hansard for 13th July:
"…in those cases where an occupier had some intimation, or guessed, or heard by chance or found out, that the supply was likely to be cut off, we could act there."
I should have thought that was a hopelessly haphazard way of approaching a
1084
serious matter of this kind. It sticks out a mile that these occupiers were entitled to notice that they were going to be cut off. That alone amply justifies this Amendment but that is not my main point. My main point is the inhumanity being inflicted by a monopoly undertaking which is supplying a vital commodity to a user who has done absolutely nothing wrong. The noble Baroness said at column 202 of Hansard in the same debate on 13th July:
"…statutory undertakers do not want, nor do they feel it is their job, nor do they feel they have the resources, to act as welfare authorities."
I should not have thought it could be called an act of a welfare authority merely to give somebody notice his supply of electricity was about to be cut off if the electricity bill was not paid.
Furthermore, I should have thought it was thoroughly bad business for the statutory undertaker not to give notice because when the landlord defaults, it is the tenant who is much the best risk against whom next to try to extract the money to pay the account. The tenant is in the strong position, if he has the money or can raise a temporary loan, to pay the bill and deduct the money from future payments of rent to the landlord. If the local authority is going to bail out the tenant and seek to recover from a landlord who has already been defaulting in his dealings with the statutory undertaker, in a large number of these cases the ratepayer is going to he landed with the bill and the defaulting landlord is going to get away with it.
The noble Baroness said at Report stage that this Amendment was defective. She used these words at column 203 of Hansard:
"The point is that his Amendment does not impose a new obligation on the statutory undertaker. The only way he could bring about the result he wants is by imposing an obligation on the statutory undertaker."
I did not follow that argument then and and I do not follow it now. I should like to cite the parallel case of the houseowner who applies for an improvement grant to improve his house. The law provides that the local authority may at its discretion provide an improvement grant on condition that the owner pays his share of the cost of the improvement. There is no legal obligation on the houseowner to contribute to the cost of the improvement. He need not if he does not want to.

1085
If he does not contribute his share, he does not get the grant. That is a parallel case and this Amendment cannot be called defective upon that ground.
If, my Lords, you are thinking purely in terms of people's obligations, you do not always get very far. I am under no legal obligation to stretch out my hand and save a child that has fallen into a lily pond; but I am expected to act with some decent humanity. Likewise, the monopoly statutory undertakers are expected to behave with some humanity to their users who have done nothing wrong. The noble Baroness said at Report stage that there might be administrative difficulties. I can see that in a very limited class of case, where the landlord and his tenant both live in the same building in separate flats and the electricity board are not sure which flat the landlord occupies and which flat the tenant occupies, there can be difficulty. In those few cases the board could take the precaution of sending the printed notice addressed to "The occupier" just to make sure that they brought themselves within this clause.
I have to admit that strictly in theory a statutory undertaker which took the view that they were determined not to issue the notices to occupiers and were determined to disqualify themselves from going to the local authority for payment of their bills, in those cases the Amendment would work against the interests of the occupier and would prevent the local authority stepping in and helping him. Those cases would be infinitesimal in number and any statutory undertaker which behaved in that way would quickly find public opinion mounting up against them. They would quickly put themselves in a position where they did not disqualify themselves from going to the local authority for payment when the landlord had failed. In those circumstances I trust that this Amendment will be found acceptable. I beg to move.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as your Lordships will know, we have been round this course before. The Government opposed this Amendment at Report stage and I will not repeat the arguments to the House at length. No doubt they will be fresh in everyone's memory. I
1086
can summarise them shortly. First, as the clause stands it allows the local authority to help either when the supply has actually been cut off or when, in their opinion, it is likely to be cut off.
I would remind the noble Lord and others that the second part was following representations by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and other noble Lords for the Government to try to do something. I felt at the time that, if I possibly could, I should do something, and that I would try to get the best possible result. I must give full marks to the noble Lord for trying very hard but, with respect, I must say that at times I find him a little trying. The noble Lord now adds a qualification that the authority could act only if the undertaker has served notice on the occupier.
May I say, first, that in our view this limit on the authority's powers is both unnecessary and undesirable. This would be a step backwards. It would take away from the authority the full discretion to intervene, if necessary, which it would have under our Amendment. Secondly, it would be wrong in this Bill to try to impose any new practices on the statutory undertakers. The noble Lord believes that if his Amendment were accepted the undertakers would amend their existing practices and serve not only the statutory notices on the person with whom they have a contractual relationship but also an extra notice on the occupier, if he is someone different.
I do not believe this Amendment would have that effect. Undertakers, under their present codes, rely on their traditional weapon of disconnection and they would not need to go to great lengths to persuade local authorities to intervene. So, in practice, the authorities' power to help would be severely limited by this Amendment. It is not really good enough for the noble Lord to say theoretically that this or that is so. We are dealing with a factual situation. This is not a question of the Government's taking a less humane view about this: we must not accept something which would worsen the situation but we must try to help it.
Briefly, these were my reasons for opposing the Amendment on Report, and I stand by them now. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, gave the analogy of

1087
improvement grants. Without going into great detail about them, these do not represent an exact analogy because improvement grants involve only the local authority and the individual; but in this case we have another authority in between, which is the statutory authority; so that this really is not on all-fours. In any case, we should be all the more reluctant to add to legislation concerning disconnection at present, because the whole subject is currently being closely examined elsewhere.
Noble Lords will be familiar with the Oakes Report which was published on 10th June. Its full title is Review of Payment and Collection Methods for Gas and Electricity Bills: Report of an Informal Inquiry. This Report looks at the whole question of procedures for payment of these bills, and one of its recommendations is that disconnection as a penalty for non-payment should no longer be allowed. I understand that the Report and its recommendations are now being considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, in consultation with the statutory undertakers concerned. I really cannot anticipate the Government's decision on this, but the fact that the whole subject of disconnection is now under review would be a very good reason why, at this moment, it would be quite inappropriate to pass this Amendment.
In addition, I would point out that since this is entering into what is obviously a very delicate area, with strong views being expressed about it, I should hate to be in any way instrumental—and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, now that I have given this explanation, will take the same view—in perhaps queering the pitch of the discussions which are now taking place. I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment at this stage and leave matters as they are.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness finds me at all trying. I did explain at the outset that, far from finding her trying, I was very grateful for the fact that the Government had come so far along the road of helping these unfortunate people about whom I am so concerned. I really wish the noble Baroness could avoid using the phrase "the weapon of disconnection", when she is talking about an occupier who
1088
has done nothing wrong and is having a vital commodity which is necessary to human comfort taken away from him by a huge monopoly. It is the inhumanity of such a situation which concerns me so much.
I am, indeed, glad to hear about the report and the fact that the matter is under review. I am sure it will be helpful to Her Majesty's Government if, when they consider this report, they consider also the discussions that we have had on this subject both on Report and, again, this afternoon, because I think it would help the Government to come to a sensible conclusion. Being somewhat comforted by that thought, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause:
Prescription of signs, etc., on certain buildings
"—(1) This section applies to any substance which in the opinion of the Council is likely to involve special hazard to persons engaged in operations for fire-fighting purposes.
(2) The premises to which this section applies are any building or place in the area for which the Council is the Fire Authority used for the manufacture or storage of any substance to which this section applies (including any part of such a building or place) and any premises of which such a building or place forms a part.
(3) The Council may in relation to any substance to which this section applies and in respect of any premises to which this section applies:—

(a) prescribe:—

(i) warning signs which indicate to such extent and in such manner as the Council think fit the nature and properties of the substance and the precautions to be taken in dealing with that substance in the event of fire; and

(ii) the size and colour of such warning signs and the materials from which they are to be made;

(b) subject to the provisions of this section, by notice given in writing require the occupier of any premises to which this section applies within such reasonable time (not being less than 21 days) as is specified in the notice to:—

(i) affix and thereafter to keep fixed during such period (only) as the particular warning signs are appropriate to the particular premises in such conspicuous position or positions in or on such premises as may be specified in the notice one or more of the appropriate warning signs which have been prescribed by the Council

1089
under the foregoing paragraph and forthwith to remove therefrom any such warning signs as are not appropriate to the particular premises and replace them by appropriate warning signs and forthwith to notify the Council in writing of such removal and replacement; and

(ii) arrange, to the satisfaction of the Council, for any such substance to be stored in such a manner as the Council may require in the notice:

Provided that the power of the Council to make requirements in respect of the manner of such storage shall extend only to requirements for the purpose of reducing any special hazard to which in the opinion of the Council persons engaged in operations for firefighting purposes may be subjected by reason of the nature and properties of any such substance or the proximity of any such substance to any other substance whether or not it is a substance to which this section applies and in making such requirement the Council shall have regard to good custom and practice and to the reasonable needs of any undertaking, trade or business carried on in those premises.
(4) The Secretary of State may give directions as to the warning signs to be prescribed by the Council under paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection and the Council, in exercising their powers under that paragraph shall comply with any such directions for the time being in force.
(5)(a) Where requirements have been made under sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section in respect of any premises to which this section applies no alteration which results in a contravention of those requirements shall be made in the manner of storage therein of any substance to which this section applies.
(b) Where it appears to the Council that requirements made under subsection (3) of this section are no longer appropriate for the purpose for which they were made the Council may from time to time, by notice given in writing, vary or revoke such requirements or make such further requirements as they consider necessary and any reference in this section to requirements made under the said subsection (3) shall include a reference to those requirements as varied under this paragraph or to any further requirements made by virtue of this paragraph.
(c) A notice served under the last foregoing paragraph which varies any requirement made under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section or which makes further requirements shall specify a reasonable time (not being less than 21 days) within which the requirements of the notice shall be complied with.
(6) Any person who is aggrieved by any requirement made under paragraph (b) of subsection (3) of this section which relates to the manner of storage of any substance to which this section applies, may, within a period of 21 days beginning with the date on which such requirement is notified to him, require the Council to deliver to him a certificate stating the grounds for the making of such requirement and he may appeal to the Secretary of State within 10 days after the receipt of the certificate.
(7) Every appeal to the Secretary of State under this section shall be made in writing asking that the requirement may not be made or may be modified in such manner and to such extent as may be set forth in the appeal, and shall be accompanied by the certificate of the Council given under the last foregoing subsection.
(8) Where an appeal is brought under this section the Secretary of State may confirm, vary or quash any requirement which is the subject of the appeal and his decision on the appeal shall have effect for the purpose of any requirement as if it had been made by the Council.
(9) Before determining any appeal made to him under this section, the Secretary of State may, if he thinks it necessary or desirable, cause an inquiry and report upon the matter to be made to him by such person as he may appoint for the purpose and shall forward to the appellant (whether in person or by counsel, solicitor or other representative) and to the Council, if either so desire, an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by the person so appointed.
(10) An officer of the Council authorised by the Council for the purposes of this section shall have the like powers of entering premises for the purposes of this section as are conferred upon authorised officers of councils by section 287 (which confers powers to enter premises) of the Public Health Act 1936 and accordingly:—

(a) that section shall have effect as if the references therein to an authorised officer of a Council included references to an officer authorised by the Council for the purposes of this section and as if among the purposes specified in subsection (1) of that section there were included the purposes of obtaining information for the purposes of this section, taking samples of any substance stored on the premises, ascertaining whether the premises contain any substance to which this section applies and whether there is, or has been, any failure to comply with any provision of, or requirement of the Council under, this section;

(b) section 288 (which imposes penalties for obstructing execution of the Act) of the said Act of 1936 shall have effect as if a person acting in pursuance of the powers conferred by the said section 287 as extended and applied by this subsection where acting in the execution of that Act.

(11)(a) Any person who:—

(i) fails within the time specified to comply to the satisfaction of the Council with a requirement of a notice under subsection (3) of this section; or

(ii) alters the manner of storage in any premises to which this section applies of any substance contrary to paragraph (a) of subsection (5) of this section;

shall, subject as hereinafter provided, be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 and to a fine not exceeding £20 for each day on which the defence is continued after the conviction therefor:
Provided that no offence under sub-paragraph (i) of this paragraph which involves a failure to comply with such a requirement as is referred to in subsection (6) of this section shall have been committed by any person until the end of any period within which an appeal under this section

1091
may be made by him in respect of the requirement in question, and, where such an appeal is duly made, until seven days after the appeal has been withdrawn or determined.
(b) In any proceedings for an offence under this subsection, shall be in defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of such an offence.
(c) If in any case the defence provided by the last foregoing paragraph involves the allegation that the commission of the offence was due to the act or default of another person or to reliance on information supplied by another person, the person charged shall not, without the leave of the Court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless, within a period ending seven clear days before the hearing he has served on the Council a notice in writing giving such information identifying or assisting in the identification of that other person as was then in his possession.
(12) Any person who, without reasonable excuse, removes a warning sign which is for the time being affixed in or on any premises to which this section applies in accordance with the requirement made under subsection (3) of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100.
(13) During such time as any substance to which this section applies is stored in any premises to which this section applies being premises which are for the time being regulated by or under:—

(a) any of the relevant statutory provisions as defined in subsection (1) of section 53 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 174; or

(b) the Radio-Active Substances Act 1960;

and the manner of storage of that substance in those premises is controlled by or under any of those enactments, the provisions of this section shall not apply to that substance so far as they relate to its manner of storage.
(14)(a) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to any premises to which this section would otherwise apply if the interest of the occupier of those premises is a Crown interest or a Duchy interest, but if it appears to the Council that satisfactory arrangements for reducing any special hazard to persons engaged in operations for fire-fighting purposes may not have been made in or on any premises exempted from the said provisions by virtue of this subsection by the display of suitable, practicable and appropriate warning signs relating to any substance to which this section applies or by reason of the manner of storage of any such substance, they may report the circumstances to the appropriate authority, who if satisfied after due enquiry that there is cause for complaint, shall cause such arrangements to be made as the appropriate authority may consider to be practicable to make adequate provision in respect of the matters aforesaid.
(b) The fact that there subsists in any premises to which this section applies a Crown interest or a Duchy interest shall not prevent or affect the application of this section to those premises or to anything done thereon so long as that interest is not the interest of the occupier of the premises and the provisions of this section shall have effect accordingly in relation to those premises and anything done thereon and that and all other interests therein.
(c) The provisions of this section shall have effect in relation to any premises to which this section applies which are occupied for the service of a visiting force as if the interest of the occupier of those premises were a Crown interest and those premises were under the control of the appropriate authority by arrangement with whom those premises are occupied.
(15) In this section:—
"the appropriate authority", "Crown interest" and "Duchy interest" have the meanings assigned to them in subsection (7) of section 266 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971;
"the Council" means the County Council;
"fire-fighting purposes" has the same meaning as in the Fire Services Act 1947;
"the Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for Employment;
"visiting force" means any such body contingent or detachment of the forces of any country as is a visiting force for the purposes of any of the provisions of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and includes any headquarters or organisation for the time being designated by an Ordering Council under section I of the International Headquarters and Defence Organisation Act 1964, for the purposes of that Act; and
"warning sign" includes a warning symbol or notice."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Gisborough and myself, I beg to move this Amendment. I must apologise in so doing that, on the face of it, this is a very long Amendment running into several pages. But when I explain that in fact it is taken from another Act of Parliament (that is, the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975), with only very minor amendments, I think your Lordships will appreciate that it is part of an existing Statute and bears very close examination.
The difficulty about this particular Amendment, which relates to the prescription of signs on certain buildings in relation to fire hazards, was particularly noticeable when we discussed my previous Amendment on 13th July during the Report stage of this Bill. At that time, we had an Amendment which my noble friend and I adduced, which was based on the Teeside Corporation Act, 1971. At that stage, the Government considered that the Amendment was defective, and they further believed that the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 provided sufficient powers. In fact the noble Baroness said about it on 13th July at column 212:
"The most important point I can make is that the Chairman of the Health and Safety Commission has been advised that these powers are adequate to make regulations covering the provisions proposed in the clause."

1093
Since discussions were taking place with the Health and Safety Commission at that time in regard to these powers, there was an element of dubiety about the existence of the powers, which relate to Section 15 of the Health and Safety Act, and derive from that section. This dubiety is still in the background: nevertheless, I should very much welcome the noble Baroness's clarifications later in this debate.
We believe it can be claimed that this Amendment is correctly drafted, that it has no defects in it and that, far from duplicating the situation, it provides a safety net. I believe the noble Baroness may well claim that it is unnecessary duplication; and if she can demonstrate to your Lordships that duplication will exist, may I suggest to your Lordships that perhaps this Amendment might be accepted on the grounds that the Secretary of State, using his powers in the earlier part of the Bill, may order that this section may not be operative. If, however, the noble Baroness is totally convinced that full powers exist, then this will be entirely satisfactory. I am entirely satisfied that our aims are totally parallel. Although we may have different approaches to improving the legislative situation in so far as signs are concerned, our aims are ultimately the same.
Finally, in regard to bringing in the regulations, it was understood on 13th July that it could be a year before they were drafted. That added a greater spur to this Amendment, since preliminary arrangements are already in hand in certain parts of the country for carrying this out. Nevertheless, the problem is to some extent remedied, because I understand that the Health and Safety Commission are now able to proceed at once and I hope the noble Baroness will be able to confirm that that is the position. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, this Amendment results from Amendments moved on Third Reading in another place and in Committee in your Lordships' House. At that time, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that this was the wrong Bill and that this point should be included in the Health and Safety at Work Act, but it was felt that there would be a delay if that course was adopted. She made
1094
many points, one of which was that the Amendment was incompatible with other legislation, but I believe that most of them are now covered by the subsections in this Amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will either accept this Amendment or give a very firm assurance that its objects can be achieved quickly through the Health and Safety at Work Act. This is an important matter, as I know she recognises. My Lords, I beg to support the Amendment.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I do not wish to attack the Amendment, but my noble friend is speaking from our Front Bench and he has used the word "we", so I am wondering to what extent this Amendment represents Conservative Party policy. Secondly, I am wondering to what extent he or his colleagues have had consultations with bodies which may be affected by this Amendment. There is one body which has certainly not been consulted—if it had, it would certainly not have supported the Amendment—and that is the CBI. I am certain that my noble friend will agree with that.
This very long new clause is headed "Prescription of signs, etc., on certain buildings", and I am wondering to what extent local authorities would have any knowledge of the requirements regarding, for example, subsection (3)(b)(ii) which states:
"Provided that the power of the Council to make requirements in respect of the manner of such storage shall extend only to requirements for the purpose of reducing any special hazard".
Then a little later the same sub-paragraph states:
"… the Council shall have regard to good custom and practice and to the reasonable needs of any undertaking, trade or business carried on in those premises."
My noble friend Lord Sandys referred to the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 and, so far as I can gather, he wants to extend the powers granted under that Act to all local councils throughout the country. But the GLC have not used the powers under the 1975 Act although, if any council has the necessary know-how to implement the powers which my noble friend is trying to introduce, it is the GLC. I do not know whether some local authority such as Clevedon is involved, but I do not think it has the necessary know-how. So I

1095
sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will reject this Amendment very strongly, because, in spite of the fact that my noble friend has used the word, "we", I do not have the impression that this is Conservative Party policy. I should have thought that these were matters which could better be dealt with under the Health and Safety at Work regulations.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to answer two points raised by—
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is out of order. He moved the Amendment and I believe he has a chance to reply at the end of the discussion on it, which I should have thought was the right procedure to follow. Perhaps we can see whether anyone else wants to intervene, before I reply.
May I first say that I shall certainly be reluctant to enter into any disputes within the Party opposite, and I hope that, no one will be too hard on the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, who seems to have stepped out of his Manifesto. However, I think what I say will get him off the hook, and that everybody will be satisfied. He said that he hoped I would be able to say something which would move the matter forward, and he was quite right in what he said. It is true that since the Report stage there has been a development. The Commission have now instructed the Health and Safety Executive to prepare regulations urgently, and this work has already started. I intended going on to explain why it would be wrong in principle to legislate in this Bill when adequate statutory powers are already available, especially when they are about to be used. But I think that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, did it very well for me and explained exactly why this provision should not have a place in this Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will be satisfied that this matter is now being dealt with urgently, and that what he and the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, want to achieve is already happening, and that he will therefore withdraw the Amendment forthwith.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think I should reply to two points raised by
1096
my noble friend Lord Merrivale. First, he suggested that there has been inadequate consultation and he referred especially to the CBI, but I assure him that I was speaking to that body only half an hour ago. I had already discussed our policy on this subject with them at an earlier stage, and again this afternoon I intimated our policy on this Amendment. My noble friend mentioned that local authorities have insufficient experience, and he referred to the Cleveland authority. I can disabuse him of any doubts he may have, because that local authority has enormous experience in this field for reasons which I gave on Second Reading.
Lord MERRIVALE: They drafted the Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I should further like to remind my noble friend that a very interesting discussion took place at Scotland Yard last week, in regard to the application of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1975 and the operations of the Hazchem scheme in the Metropolitan district. As the experience of the police, in conjunction with the fire service and the local authority, has been extremely happy in regard to this matter, it greatly encouraged me to believe that the Amendment as set out in the Marshalled List was one which should be open to further discussion. Before I withdraw the Amendment, which I propose to do in a moment, I should like to say that it is thanks to the hard work and initiative of the Cleveland local authority that the matter has been raised in such detail. If their efforts are to be rewarded by the speeding up of regulations to be made by the Health and Safety at Work Commission, they will have been well worth while. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.41 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
"Extension to parish and community councils of power to provide nature reserves. 1949 c. 97.
(". The powers conferred on a county council and district council by sections 21 and 99(6) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, shall, with the approval of the Nature Conservancy Council, also be exercisable by a parish council or community council and references in those sections and section 23 of that Act to a local authority shall be construed accordingly.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, originally I put down an Amendment to Clause 18 which had much the same intention as this Amendment, but the noble Baroness opposite and the Nature Conservancy Council suggested that that was an inappropriate place since it would put nature conservation with recreation. This Amendment has the same intention, but goes right back to the provisions of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act and is almost the ipsissima verba of the clause which first gave local authorities the power to set up nature reserves.
I should remind your Lordships that under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act the larger authorities—the county councils and county boroughs—had absolute power to set up nature reserves. Although the smaller authorities—the rural and urban district councils—had that right, it was subject to the consent of the Nature Conservancy Council. It seems then to have been thought that it was likely to become a major local authority function and fairly elaborate provisions were made to settle squabbles between a county council and a district council, both of which wanted to set up a reserve on the same piece of land.
In the event, however, that has not happened; not many local authorities have set up nature reserves. Most nature reserves have been set up by the Nature Conservancy Council, the Naturalists' Trust and other voluntary bodies like the RSPB. Those authorities which have set up nature reserves have almost invariably done so—indeed, invariably so far as I know—in co-operation locally with the Naturalists' Trust which provides the expertise. Among them have been a number of urban district councils but not, so far as I have been able to find out, any rural district councils. This is largely because a rural district council was an administrative unit concerned only with administration, whereas the urban district councils, which had a good deal of civic pride, were anxious to see maintained the remaining natural habitats and their associated fauna and flora, such as wetlands created by mining subsidence and interesting parts of the neighbouring coastline; and those they have turned into nature reserves.
When the Local Government Act 1972 was passed, the smaller authorities ceased to exist; they were all thrown into the new district councils, which are administrative units like the old rural district councils. The urban district councils, which had shown such enthusiasm for nature conservation, became parish or community councils. That came about quite fortuitously but, as I have said, setting up and managing reserves has not become a major local authority function. It has become almost a personal function in these very personal rural areas. It has not grown to be, nor, indeed, of any necessity need it grow to be, a major function; nor is there any necessity for it to be administered over a wide area like education, roads or housing. As I have said, the necessary expertise is available locally through the Naturalists' Trust.
I have sent a copy of this Amendment to the Nature Conservancy Council who have made the following statement:
"The Nature Conservancy Council are in sympathy with the proposal that parish councils should be able to establish nature reserves. It is their understanding that this is already being done at one level—i.e. by the acquisition of small parcels of land, e.g. parish copses".
In parenthesis, may I say that they are, I believe, referring to the Open Spaces Act 1906. The Nature Conservancy Council go on to say:
"Additionally, under existing legislation county and district councils can establish statutory local reserves on behalf of parish councils".
That is a fact under the Local Government Act. Finally they say:
"Departure from this position would have important and wide-ranging implications which the Nature Conservancy Council have not yet had the opportunity to assess in detail".
That is the statement of the Nature Conservancy Council. They welcome the intentions which lie behind the Amendment but they have not yet considered the method proposed.
The Open Spaces Act allows a parish council to acquire open space, which is defined as being used for the purposes of recreation or lying waste and unoccupied. It seems curious that it should be recommended in that way, although I am grateful for the recommendation. It shows parish councils what they can do. The Local Government Act allows a local authority to exercise its functions through another local authority. The

1099
Act also allows local authorities to make such arrangements between themselves as they find mutually convenient in arranging who should pay for the carrying out of the function.
Both of those meet certain of my points, but the last is the one which the noble Baroness may think is not altogether satisfactory. We know that the district councils do not possess the expertise to do this job. This means that they do not possess the expertise to judge whether or not the proposals of a parish council are sensible. The Nature Conservancy Council have that expertise. Our Amendment—when I say "our" I am not referring to my noble friends who are of the same political complexion but to those who are of the same commonsensical outlook on nature reserves as myself—means that it seems to be better to leave the decision to the Nature Conservancy Council who know what they are about than to the larger local authorities which, ex hypothesi, do not.
I hope the Government will be prepared to accept this Amendment. I find it difficult to see how they can possibly find any reason against it, and with hopeful anticipation I beg to move the Amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, as I may claim to have something of the same common-sensical attitude, in a limited field, as has the noble Earl, may I support the Amendment and ask the noble Baroness who is to reply for Her Majesty's Government to view it sympathetically. It appears that this Amendment does nothing to run counter to the legitimate authority held by other bodies, but it would allow a local body, which has a specific interest in these matters, to designate a small area.
In the work which I was forced to do in order to relieve my ignorance when I introduced into your Lordships' House a Bill dealing with endangered species, I learned that flora and fauna in this country were often threatened because of the disappearance of some local habitat, which might be quite small. This is best known to the groups of enthusiasts in a district, and if they can exercise local influence in order to get something like this done and get the Nature Conservancy Council to agree with them, it would seem to me that something eminently desirable
1100
and something that cannot possibly do any harm is being done. So I support this Amendment.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I too should like to support my noble friend. I think this is the third time that my noble friend has tried to insert this new clause into this Bill, and I am most interested to know how the noble Baroness will deal with it in view of the way in which she addressed the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. My noble friend certainly is persistent. I support this Amendment wholeheartedly. In a situation such as is envisaged in a council the local people become really involved. In this House we pass legislation and on occasions we tend to forget that it affects people. A parish council is the smallest unit of, almost, self-government, and the councils are intensely interested in their areas. When enthusiastic people in a small council such as that will go to the trouble to preserve something, and will go to the Nature Conservancy Council for that purpose, then I feel they should be supported.
I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will look with favour upon this Amendment, which I think will be of great assistance not only to the morale of the people on parish councils but also to the conservation of a great deal of flora and fauna which is becoming more and more threatened every year.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I wish to support the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I can do so with a clear conscience because I voted against the 1972 Local Government Bill from beginning to end; so I am not speaking against my own Party—as the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, mentioned—without having shown my colours beforehand.
I am thinking particularly of my county of Devon. I believe it is now the biggest county, and obviously it cannot get down to the local level of so many parish councils who understand what is happening in their districts. I remember the excellent document which was written by a member of the Party opposite, the late Arthur Skeffington, when he was a Minister in the other House. He wrote Consult the People. I thought it was one of the best documents that had ever been produced. As time goes on

1101
we consult the people less and less, and therefore this is one of the reasons why I support this Amendment.
I also support it because I have personal experience of what can happen. Certain woods in Devon were to be sold for commercial purposes. I and a number of other people were very angry about this, and in two months we raised £8,500 and, with the consent of the local council, gave this sum to the National Trust in order that they might have the woods looked after. That was all done by local people because they were so anxious to preserve those beautiful woods and I am glad to say they are to be preserved for all time. That may be a rather larger project than most, but we want to get the people in those small districts and the community councils interested in their own areas. If, by this Amendment, they can be helped in any way and be given further pride in their areas, I hope the noble Baroness will consider it favourably.
It is not just a matter of the actual conservation but of keeping the whole place tidy. Many districts now have "Best Kept Village" competitions. These particularly interest local people and should be encouraged. If the noble Baroness could accept this Amendment I feel it would give further encouragement to parish councils and community councils. I am an addict of "The Archers" programme on the BBC and when I listen to all the interest that is taken in their local areas by the characters in that programme I think it is a good example of what can be done to help to encourage people in this way. With those few words I hope the noble Baroness will consider accepting this excellent Amendment.
Lord CRAIGTON:My Lords, I too should like to support this Amendment. Over the weekend I have consulted a number of local people who are interested and who take part in the local bodies which will be affected by this Amendment, and the unanimous consensus of opinion is that this Amendment must be right because, as the noble Baroness said, the more people who are interested in nature reserves, the better for all concerned.
Whether in relation to any particular area these powers are used at all, and if so, how they are used or by which authority,
1102
is a matter for purely local negotiation. They may not necessarily apply in every area, but there will be areas where this is the complete solution. The main problem with nature reserves arises after they are initially set up. In the first flush of enthusiasm numbers of people are interested, but we who are concerned all the time in nature reserves know that when the interest has cooled the nature reserve has to be maintained and the fences have to be kept in good order and that is a job which is much better done by local people: people who are interested, people who care and people who take a pride in their local nature reserve.
Without doubt—and I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will agree with me—there will be cases where a particular reserve in a particular area is best served by one of the local organisations rather than by a more remote authority. This Amendment will solve, not a great many but a number of serious problems and, in spite of what the Nature Conservancy have said in their letter to my noble friend, I cannot see that it will create any new problems for anyone. After all, the Nature Conservancy Council have the whip hand in the end and we are all grateful to them for what they do.
5.59 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, this Amendment clearly has strong support on all sides of the House and I think perhaps it will not be a surprise to my noble friend Lord Cranbrook if I add my somewhat muted support while having great sympathy with what he intends to do. In fact on this occasion my noble friend Lady Young and I share the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in what she said during the Report stage of this Bill. Speaking of the Nature Conservancy Council she said this—and I quote her exact words:
"While I am anxious to see the establishment of as many nature reserves as possible, my view—which is also the view of the Nature Conservancy Council—is that there should not be a lowering of the standard of what is statutorily classified as a nature reserve."—(Official Report; 13/7/76, col. 188.)
In a period when considerable strictures are placed on local government finances, it is a difficult problem to ensure that new powers are granted to a parish council.
While I am very much in favour of the establishment of further nature reserves,

1103
I am just wondering whether this Bill is the right place to do it. My noble friend Lord Cranbrook sought to bring a very similar Amendment before your Lordships under Clause 19 of the Bill; that was under the clause dealing with places of entertainment. I hope he will appreciate the extent to which we admire his continuity, his perseverance and his researches, because I was certainly not aware of the Open Spaces Act 1906, to which he referred, having previously imagined that most legislation in this sphere took place very much later.
My Lords, we believe that the Amendment, while correctly drafted, will not have entirely satisfactory results. We believe that it would be better if there were delegated powers, so that district councils may act on an agency basis for a parish in a particular instance, or, in a similar situation. In this regard, I was very much of the same opinion as my noble friend Lord Craigton. I share his view almost completely in this field. It would be possible within the context of local negotiations to achieve what is desired, but I am rather doubtful whether this particular clause could be inserted in the Bill with total satisfaction.
6.2 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the knowledge in these matters of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I admire his persistence, a word I think used by the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford. I sympathise with the aim of the Amendment, and it is therefore with regret that I must continue to oppose the efforts of the noble Earl on this point, although in doing so I find, having a strange political bedfellow, that I have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, opposite, who traced a great many of the arguments which I have used and am going to use on this Amendment.
First of all, as said before, this is not the place for a new clause of this kind. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to provisions commonly precedented in local Acts. This clause does not appear in any local Act. But that really is not the general basis of my opposition to the clause. It does not depend on that argument, because there are other powerful objections. The distribution of functions between local authorities was carefully considered when the Bill, which
1104
became the Local Government Act 1972, was being prepared. I personally, and the members of my Party, consider that this is a thoroughly bad Act, and I am very glad to have, in this instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, on my side, who said the same thing. Nevertheless, the Act is here, and for the moment it is here to stay. At that point, parishes could then have been given power to set up nature reserves, but this was not done. I must point out that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said that the new districts have not the expertise to set up new nature reserves; but these are the successors, with better resources, of the former urban districts, which the noble Earl applauded. So from that point of view there is not a great change except, I would say, for the better.
I believe it would lead to confusion if the same powers were available concurrently at three levels of authority—parish, district and county. To make new powers available to some 10,000 authorities must have implications for public expenditure, both for parishes and for the Nature Conservancy Council. Probably this is part of the reason for their comments. The noble Earl read out the comments of the Nature Conservancy Council. While they expressed in practically the same way as I did the same sympathy with the aims, they also pointed out, as I was going to do anyway, that this is already being done at one level by the acquisition of parcels of suitable land without actually declaring them to be nature reserves; secondly, they can and do ask districts and counties to act on their behalf, and these are the authorities which are the result of the reorganisation. Thirdly, they can ask the districts to enter into agency agreements under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the parish to exercise these functions on behalf of the district.
Taking the facts as they are at the moment, and working under the present Local Government Reorganisation Act, I would suggest these procedures in that context are a much more realistic way for parishes to achieve their desired result. However, having said that, I think the noble Earl is probably aware that the National Association of Local Councils have recently submitted proposals on a range wide of matters concerning parishes. When those proposals

1105
are put in, we will consider them, along with others and this no doubt will be one of them. Then, in the greater time available, we shall be able to look more thoroughly into the implications. But, at this moment, for the reasons I have given—and the reasons were expanded by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, on the one hand, and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, also made some very pungent points on the question of nature reserves—in the present setup to change the organisation, the redistribution in that way would be wrong, and certainly in the context of this Bill. So I hope that the noble Earl—and I think this is his third attempt—will now withdraw his Amendment once again.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I hope those of your Lordships who do not sit on either Front Bench will have noticed the extraordinary way in which both Front Benches have reacted to any proposal to alter the status quo. There was a Latin tag. I am not quite certan whether I remember it rightly, but it ran something like aliquot novum pro horrifico—anything new is absolutely terrible. That has been the reaction of both of our Front Benches. There is some excuse for the noble Baroness opposite. She is briefed by her Department, and we all know that the invariable reaction of every Department is to say, No, and scarcely to bother to look for any reason for saying, Yes.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, would the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, give way? This is absolutely untrue. I am arguing this on the basis of an Act of Parliament, passed and put through by the Party of the noble Earl when in Government. I am dealing with that—
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I am coming to that.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, what I am objecting to is the idea of just being brief, and not reading the brief. This is not true, because I have gone into this carefully. I have great sympathy with the rights of small bodies and individuals. It is for this reason that I am so strongly opposed to the present Local Government Reorganisation Act. It is no good the noble Earl blaming that on this Front Bench.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I was trying to find excuses for her, because all I can say about my own Front Bench is that they are acting wilfully, feloniously and with malice aforethought, without the advice of any Department. And if the noble Baroness wishes to put that cap on she is at liberty to do it. I understood that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bills come out one after the other after every successive local government reform Act, trying to pick up the mistakes made. I rather agree with the noble Baroness that a great many mistakes were made in the last Act, and that this was a major one. This seems to me to be an entirely appropriate place in which to put it. I must apologise to your Lordships, and to the noble Baroness for having been so persistent, but obviously I made a mistake at earlier stages. I chose a method to which both the noble Baroness and the Nature Conservancy Council objected. I had hoped that I had now got a method to which people would not object.
I do not wish to repeat myself too much, but the position here is that we have a number of the larger parishes, and your Lordships should remember that parishes, which when we were young were silly little places like my own, with populations going down to a few hundred, have now gone up to many thousands. There are parishes of varying sizes, from the very small ones right up to parishes with populations of 30,000, and, I. believe, one of even 40,000. These large parishes were formerly urban districts which had the power to do this; they exercised that power and they exercised it admirably. If this was done deliberately in the Local Government Act—I cannot believe it was; I think this came about ambulando while the Bill was going through—it was a grave mistake that this power was taken away from people who had exercised it exceedingly well; there were a very small number of them, but they exercised it well. In the world of nature conservation we cannot afford to neglect the willingness and the sense of people who wish to set up nature reserves, whoever they are.
So far as the control of these reserves are concerned, I cannot help feeling a little cynical when it is suggested that the 1906 Act should be used, because in

1107
point of fact the 1906 Act was exactly like Clause 18 of this Bill, and I was told off for putting down an Amendment to that clause for this purpose. That Act was generally used to provide places for recreation, but there is, fortunately, a phrase in it which talks about places which are wild and uncultivated, and it just brings in these smaller places, as the Nature Conservancy Council says. So at the moment the smaller parishes can use their existing powers. I am ashamed to say that I had not realised this until I learned it from the Nature Conservancy Council. They can use their existing powers under the 1906 Act to set up what are called little places in their parishes. It is the larger ones which I am concerned with, those which controlled the reserves admirably in the past and which I now suggest should do it under the control of the Nature Conservancy. Nothing that the Front Benches on either side have said has led me to believe that this Amendment should be withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before my noble friend Lord Cranbrook withdraws or does not withdraw his Amendment, perhaps I may make three comments on what he has said. I sympathise a great deal with the point that he is trying to make, and I have great sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, over this. When my noble friend said that the purpose of the Bill was to put the 1972 Local Government Act right, he was not quite correct. The purpose of the Bill is to
carry out one of the provisions of the 1972 Act; under that Act a certain amount of legislation will run out, both in 1978 and in 1984, and it is essential, therefore, that it should be re-enacted in this Bill. Two general principles govern the Bill. One is that the legislation should be precedented and the other is that it should be non-controversial.
So far as the noble Earl's Amendment is concerned, I think we might all agree that this may be a very good thing to do. But the fact is that it is not precedented, and if it were accepted it would be altering the functions as laid down in the 1972 Act. I should think that it was outside the terms of this Bill, and we should get ourselves into considerable difficulty if we agreed with it. For that reason I feel unable to support my noble friend, although I have sympathy with the point of view that he is trying to express.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, with the permission of the House, may I reply again at the end of the debate. I must say to the noble Baroness that I am unlikely to be here in 1984, when she might do it in my place. I want to see it done now.
6.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided:— Contents, 53; Not-Contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Derwent, L.

Robbins, L.

Amulree, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Rochester, L.

Balerno, L.

Ferrers, E.

St. Davids, V.

Banks, L.

Gainford, L.

Somers, L.

Berkeley, B.

Goschen, V.

Spens, L.

Boothby, L.

Greenway, L.

Stamp, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Strange, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Kimberley, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Byers, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Strathspey, L.

Chelwood, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Terrington, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Wade, L.

Craigton, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Cranbrook, E. [Teller.]

Merrivale, L.

Wigoder, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Monck, V.

Windlesham, L.

de Clifford, L. [Teller.]

Northchurch, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

De Freyne, L.

Rankeillour, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Peddie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Balogh, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Hoy, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Slater, L.

Caradon, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Castle, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Vaizey, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Melchett, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

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

Murray of Newhaven, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gaitskell, B.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

George-Brown, L.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 38 [Use of spare capacity of computers of local authorities]:
6.22 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 49, line 10, leave out ("as beneficial to the authority as those") and insert ("terms").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment corrects defective wording in the clause. Our attention was drawn to this by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to whom we are grateful, because the clause is much better drafted now than it was originally. Noble Lords will remember that the object of the original Amendment was to ensure the sale of surplus computer time by local authorities at a rate not less than another undertaking, notably a commercial firm, would charge. The intention was the same in my original Amendment, but the way it has now been redrafted makes it very much better and more positive and not quite as inverted. I beg to, move.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, finding a defect in a Government Amendment is rather like winning a hole against Gary Player—not that I have ever done that. I am sure that this is an improvement.
Clause 48 [Licensing of private hire vehicles]:
6.24 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 9
Page 56, line 34, after ("of") insert ("roof").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9, and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 10. I appreciate that this again is a course that we have been round several times on this Bill already, but I put down these Amendments again, the principle of which we have debated before, because they are ones on which those who have an interest in private hire cars believe to be of considerable importance.
I have read with great care what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said on Report. As I understand it, under what is now Clause 48 a district council, if it so wished, could agree that a private hire firm could indicate the name of the proprietor upon it. What my Amendment seeks to do is to make this something which would, under Statute, happen in all controlled districts. The one point which the noble Lord did not answer last time was that although a subsection similar to my Amendment is included in the Plymouth City Council Bill, and as the whole of this Part of this Bill is taken almost precisely from the Plymouth City Council Bill, why has it not been included in this Bill?
As I understand it, it was included in another place and then was taken out. I further understand that there have been no difficulties about the working of this subsection of the Plymouth City Council Act in Plymouth. The major objection raised to it is that members of the public

1111
would be misled into believing that a private hire car was similar to a hackney carriage and was therefore plying for hire. But, as the wording of my Amendment makes clear, it is not my intention that there should be any element of deception at all, which I think would be quite wrong, and that the signs should be such as would not lead a member of the public to believe that the private hire car was a licensed hackney carriage. I believe that this would be for the convenience of the public. I beg to move.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I too should like to ride my horse round this familar course once more in support of this Amendment. To be pernickety, I should have preferred that the words in the Amendment, "would lead to public to suppose", were "might lead the public to suppose …" I think that might be preferable, but it is a small point. We have to balance the inconvenience to members of the public, emerging together say, from a theatre, having ordered a hire care and needing to identify it and being able to identify it if it has a sign upon it because they know the firm from whom they hire it, whereas the driver may not know them or be able to identify them, with the other factor that members of the public in the street may think, when they see a sign on this car, that it is a taxi and may hail it and may temporarily be inconvenienced and disappointed because they find it is not a taxi and have to wait a little longer, perhaps in the rain, until a real taxi comes along.
I am not really very concerned about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that a situation might arise where the car hire firm responds to the person who hails a taxi and illegally, therefore, plies for hire. I should have thought that the police and the taxi trade between them would very soon be able to catch up with any car hire firm which started to adopt that sort of practice. If the odd occasion arose when the hire car got away with it and did ply for hire as a taxi, I would not lose very much sleep over that. Therefore, I am strongly in support of this Amendment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble Baroness said, and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, agreed, that
1112
this is an old friend; I well remember the speeches that were made on the last occasion we debated this matter. I will therefore, as briefly as possible, explain why the Government still find this proposal unacceptable. We begin—at least, the noble Baroness and I do—with agreement on the central question of principle involved; that is, we are both anxious to ensure that there should be no element of deception, and in that I entirely agree with her.
As drafted, in Clause 48(2) the Bill grants to a district council the power to attach conditions to the granting of a private hire vehicle licence, including conditions which either require or prohibit the display of signs. The Amendment seeks to limit this power to require or prohibit the display of roof signs, which would lead the public to suppose that the vehicle was a licensed hackney carriage. The clause as worded is intended to aid local authorities in preventing illegal plying for hire by private hire vehicles. It will allow them to control the display of signs form private hire vehicles with a view to minimising the possibility that such signs would lead members of the public to assume that the vehicle was availale for immediate hire. The clause will not however prevent local agreement being reached as to signs which might be permitted with a view to legitimately identifying private hire cars—the point the noble Baroness put to me—and this may be given effect under the Bill by district councils banning all signs other than those which it specifically permits.
The problem with the Amendment is that roof signs are not by any means the only method used throughout the country to identify a vehicle as a hackney carriage or to lead the public to suppose that the vehicle is available for immediate hire. If roof signs only were to be dealt with in the Bill, there would, for example, be nothing at all to prevent some of the less scrupulous operators from displaying illuminated signs inside the vehicle or elsewhere, on the exterior, bearing the words "Taxi" or "For hire", or resorting to other methods of advertisement clearly designed to mislead the public.
Thus, the situation is that, as drafted, the Bill brings in a degree of control, or could do so, over all signs. The Amendment, on the other hand, deals

1113
exclusively with roof signs and, as I have indicated, for that reason—because it would be possible for the less scrupulous to evade the intention; the noble Baroness and I agree that there should be no element of deception and there should be no way in which a person with a private hire licence could pretend that he is available for hire and is therefore a hackney carriage—we believe that the Bill as drafted is right.
The noble Baroness raised the question of the Plymouth City Council Act. To be blunt—and I think the noble Baroness will agree with me here—the position is that we regard this as a forward-looking Bill but not perfect in every conceivable respect; As she knows, we should not have chosen to put this in the Bill in the first instance. But it has been done and we have sought to improve the Bill in such a way as will make the enforcement powers in this clause, and in the Bill generally, capable of being applied in the area of any local authority. Our view is that this is the best way of approach, and I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will agree with us.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. It is extemely important that there should be no element of doubt that the vehicle one uses is a hackney carriage. When one realises the stringency of both the training and control involved with these vehicles as opposed to the still quite loose type of control of the private hire car, it is important that the men concerned should have their livelihood protected, and I fear any erosion. It is easy to say that people coming out of a theatre must be able to recognise the vehicles wating for them, but it is equally true to say that people will hail a car going through the city and displaying, quite illegally, a bright sign. I have seen it done. I think that members of the public would be deceived, and as this is a group in the community which has to earn its passage, we should do everything to protect the position of licensed vehicles.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we are all agreed on the principle and nobody is trying to deceive the public into thinking that a private hire is a licensed hackney carriage. Of course the answer to the
1114
noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is that under the Bill very stringent provisions will apply to the drivers of private hire vehicles, so I do not think that even her argument would apply, about the possibility of getting a private hire driver not being up to the standard of the driver of a hackney carriage vehicle. I do not intend to press the Amendment because I believe that representations could be made to the local authority which could, under Clause 48(2), achieve what they wish, and I think that that would be the right way to approach the subject. However, it is important that those whose livelihood is directly affected by the Bill should have been the subject of the maximum amount of discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 53 [Drivers' licences for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles]:
6.36 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 60, line 7, after ("vehicle") insert ("housed in any parish or community where in the opinion of the district council it is desirable to encourage the housing of a private hire vehicle in order to provide a better transport service for the inhabitants or").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not think there is as much difference between myself and the Front Bench opposite on this Amendment as there was over the last one we discussed. The Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, moved on Report was intended to cover the cases which I have specified in this Amendment. The only reason I have tabled this Amendment is because, to be frank, the administration of some of our new district councils is a very long way from the small parishes, and I should like it made abundantly clear to them that this is one of the reasons they must have under consideration if they decide to reduce the fees. I do not think I need add more in moving the Amendment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, perhaps I might explain the point we have reached on this issue. Clause 53 as drafted provides that a district council may charge, for the issue of a licence to drive a taxi or a private hire car, such fee

1115
as the council considers reasonable with view to recovering the costs of issue and administration. The clause further provides that where the council thinks it appropriate, it may, in the case of the driver of a private hire vehicle, charge a lower fee, or no fee. The purpose of this relaxation, although not spelled out in, the Bill—the noble Earl is right about this—is to take account of the circumstances (described by the noble Earl on Report) of remote rural areas having no readily available taxi services and but limited public transport facilities. The noble Earl feared that the imposition of normal levels of fees might cause such public-spirited citizens, who sometimes do this on a part-time basis, to cease their transport activities.
As I said on Report, the Government have every sympathy—indeed, there was agreement throughout the House on this—with the problems of people living in such areas and are concerned to see that increased operating costs resulting from the introduction of licensing should not tend to deprive small and remote communities of such transport facilities as they at present possess. As a result, the Government introduced the Amendment, to which I referred and which was accepted by the House, having the effect of making it clear that where a district council thinks it appropriate, it may charge a lower licence fee or indeed dispense with the fee altogether, and that is now in the Bill.
The noble Earl's Amendment, if carried, would add nothing to the relaxation set out in the Bill. Rather, it would introduce a kind of limitation, in that it would refer in particular to vehicles "housed" in a parish or community where certain factors applied, going on thereafter to refer to the more general case. As I pointed out on Report, the area in which a vehicle is housed or garaged is not necessarily that in which it is operated as a private hire vehicle and a transport service for the inhabitants of a parish may be provided by a vehicle which is garaged outside the parish.
As a result, I do not think that the present Amendment would assist in achieving the objective with which the noble Earl is concerned. I believe that the power which has now been written into the Bill to give the district council
1116
power to waive or to lower the fees meets the point and, although I do not want to be tied too explicitly to this, I shall certainly consider whether, in the circular which will go out to local authorities when the Bill is on the Statute Book, we might perhaps be able to spell something out as far as this is concerned. I hope that that will meet the noble Earl's point. I have attempted to point out why I think that the present form of words is better than what is suggested.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, if the noble Lord would withdraw the word "perhaps" I should be perfectly satisfied.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I believe that the noble Earl can leave it. I shall do my best to ensure that this point is met.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 75 [Saving fir certain vehicles etc.]:
6.44 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 72, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) apply to a vehicle used in pursuance of a contract fot the hire of the vehicle for a journey not wholly within a controlled district;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to Clause 75 which provides saving for certain vehicles et cetera. Its purpose is to confine the application of the whole of this Part of the Bill to journeys which take place wholly within a controlled district. The reason for the Amendment is that, without it, the position of the multiple car hire firms which undertake long-distance journeys will be made very difficult because they will be travelling, for instance, in and from uncontrolled districts into and through controlled districts. Even as between one controlled district and another there may be no uniformity because there are numerous places in this part of the Bill where the particular local authority is allowed to impose its own terms and

1117
conditions. This will make the business of the multiple car hire firms extremely difficult.
I do not think that I need apologise for putting down this Amendment again having done so on Report. At that time, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, thought that this point was dealt with in his subsequent Government Amendment and, as so often happens on these occasions, spent so much time describing the merits of his Amendment that he ran out of time or out of steam and never got round to telling me the demerits, if any, of my Amendment.
So, here we are, discussing it again. If it is adopted, presumably it will work satisfactorily because, after all, since, as we know so well, the whole of this part of the Bill is practically copied out from the Plymouth Local Act, it was presumably worth while introducing it for Plymouth and Plymouth clearly had no power to impose it on any other outside district. Of course, we do not know how many local authorities will adopt this part of the Bill and it is entirely up to them whether or not they do so. Some will. As a result, we shall have, so to speak, a number of "Plymouths" dotted about the country, each operating a control which Plymouth presumably finds satisfactory for its purposes. So, in putting forward the Amendment, I suggest that for those reasons it ought to work satisfactorily.
When we come to the Government Amendment put forward on Report as supposedly meeting the case, that was the Amendment which is now enshrined in the clause as subsection (2). Of course it does not meet the case because subsection (2) only deals with vehicles operated from within a controlled area and does not apply at all to vehicles operated from an uncontrolled area. So there is a lacuna there. Therefore, I put it to your Lordships that the Amendment is required.
While we are discussing subsection (2), I hope that we shall be told how this will work: what is to happen to those operators who operate from what is now an uncontrolled area? Of course they will want to have the protection given in subsection (2) and will want to become licensed in some
1118
controlled area so that they will get the resulting protection. How are they to achieve that? In the early stages, there will not be all that number of controlled districts, so what are these operators to do? They will have to find a controlled district and they will be strangers from outside that district applying to the local authority for licences.
Does that not make nonsense of the whole system of local licensing operations? Surely, local authorities issue licences to people whom they know something about or about whom they can easily find out because they are local people. If a large number of operators come into a district from outside to apply for licences in order to obtain the protection of subsection (2), will they be welcomed by the local authority and will the latter be at all happy about dishing out licences to these people from outside about whom it knows so much less than it does about its own local people? I just do not know how this system is to operate. Perhaps we can be told. However it is to operate, I suggest that we require the Amendment in any case to save this embarrassment to the long distance operators. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, we debated this very thoroughly on Report. The argument that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, used was that if we allowed an Amendment similar to this we should be going against the principle of this Part of the Bill. I have read very carefully what he has said on this matter but what concerns me is the very practical point about places like London where I gather there are 20,000 private hire vehicles. In order to operate the clause, they will presumably have to get themselves licensed somewhere, otherwise they will not be able to operate outside London because they will be in an uncontrolled district. I was glad to hear that that district includes Heathrow. However, there are plenty of other places to which people may wish to travel outside London. I feel that it would be very helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would explain how he sees operators in London and similar districts working if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, or something similar is not accepted.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 cover the same territory and so I shall speak to both. The effect of the first Amendment would be to take wholly outside the controls contained in Part II of the Bill any vehicle hired for a journey crossing the boundary of a controlled district, and, as the noble Baroness surmised, the Government remain as hostile to the principle of the Amendment as they were on the last occasion we debated it. If the Amendment were carried, the only journeys which would be controlled under Part II of the Bill would be those performed entirely within a district. Such journeys would have to be performed by a licensed vehicle, driven by a licensed driver, and booked by a licensed operator within the district. That would be the position. But if the Amendment were to he accepted for any journey going outside a district and for the whole of that journey, the hirer would be deprived of the benefits and the protection which the Bill is intended to provide.
This would be a return to the present uncontrolled situation which has itself caused Parliament to add Part II to the Bill. For such a journey, the hirer would be liable to find himself driven in an untested, unlicensed, inadequately maintained or insured vehicle, by a driver of whom nothing is known. That would be the position if the Amendment were carried and, frankly, this is wholly contrary to the general intention of this Part of the Bill. The Bill already provides Clause 75(1)(a) that any vehicles, whether or not licensed, may bring a passenger into a controlled district under a contract made outside it and provided that the vehicle is not made available for hire in the district. This is to allow businesses operated from outside the controlled district to perform journeys into or through controlled districts without the need of licences, and it safeguards the right of vehicles from uncontrolled districts to perform hirings into controlled districts. But I said—
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, are we now on Amendment No. 14? I ask this because I want to move that Amendment separately.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord,
1120
I propose to speak to both Amendments, and I shall gladly speak again on Amendment No. 14 if the noble Lord wishes. But both Amendments are objectionable in principle and I am endeavouring to point out why. I think it would be more helpful to your Lordships if I were to make it quite clear now that both Amendments are equally unacceptable so far as the Government are concerned.
As I indicated at the Report stage we cannot agree that a vehicle from an uncontrolled area should enjoy the privilege of offering for hire in a controlled district. Not only would this be quite unfair to the tested and licensed operators, but it would be misleading to members of the public. The remedy lies with the operator in the uncontrolled district. If he wishes for complete freedom of action in all areas, he has only to submit his vehicles for inspection and licensing in a controlled area and to use only licensed drivers. The noble Baroness asks what is the position regarding London—and to go back to a point we debated on the last occasion, the same question can be asked regarding Scotland. The fact is that if they wanted to do this, they would have to cause themselves to be licensed, and it would be for them to determine in their own business interest when that time had arisen. But clearly that is the only way in which, in my view, we can create a fair system of licensing control.
The noble Lord has, I think, suggested that there may be circumstances where this situation could be confusing for the multi-base long-distance hire companies, but I do not think that this should be so. Such a company has only to have its vehicles licensed in any one area in order to benefit by the wide relaxation contained in subsection (2) of Clause 75. This allows that the vehicle and its driver may be used in any controlled district if licences for the vehicle and the driver, issued by any other controlled district, are in force. There will be no problems arising from conditions of licensing, for the only conditions applying to any vehicle are those attaching to its licence. Conditions normally imposed by the councils of other districts to which it goes, or through which it passes, will not affect it, for they do not form part of the licence for the vehicle. The Amendment proposed by the noble Lord would tend to upset the whole purpose of including

1121
Part II in the Bill in the first place and, in my view, is not in any event necessary. For this reason I hope that the noble Lord will decide not to press the Amendment.
6.56 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I have listened to the Government's reply with great interest, but I do not think that the Minister has begun to answer the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and myself. How do these people in uncontrolled districts set about getting licences in controlled districts? If there are 20,000 operators in London and, say, 15,000 of them want to keep their options open to do long-distance journeys, or at any rate journeys taking them outside London, where do they go for their licences? Let us suppose that the nearest council which has adopted Part II of the Bill is the council that covers Redhill. Do 15,000 London private hire operators descend upon the local council at Redhill and say: "We are applying for licences under Part II of this Act"—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? We are in a slight difficulty here. I do not have a right of reply because this is the noble Lord's Amendment, but he is asking a question and, if he will forgive me, I think ought to give him the answer. As I said in reply to the question from the noble Baroness, the answer is for the private hire vehicle operator to decide when he wishes to make application to another local authority. Let us take an absurd example and suppose that there are only one or two local authorities in the whole of the country which have used these particular powers laid down in this clause. It will not be to their commercial advantage to do so. It would be a foolish thing to do.
But if it is quite clear, as no doubt will be the situation, that an increasing number of authorities introduce these powers, then when that time arises the operator, within London or, indeed, in Scotland, will, at that moment, decide to apply to a particular local authority. I do not think that all the operators will apply to the local authority in Redhill. I think that they will simply decide that it is to their commercial advantage to do so at a
1122
particular time, and that would seem to be a rather sensible way of proceeding.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question before he continues. Why does he assume—I think rather gloomily—that only so few district councils will take advantage of this provision?
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I think the answer to that is that so far only Plymouth has sought a power of this kind, but it has been within the power of any other local authority which chose to follow Plymouth's example to do so and no local authority has. I think that perhaps that is the answer to the noble Baroness. But I am not going to be put off my stride by what the Minister said just now. Admittedly, Redhill may not be the only one.
Let us suppose that within driving distance of London there are six local authorities which make themselves controlled districts, and we divide these 15,000 London operators by six. Where does that lead? There would be 2,500 operators going to each of a number of local authorities outside London, saying "We want to register with you in order to get the protection". It is very important that the absurdity of this should be seen. Those operators may say, "We wish to get protection under subsection (2) of Clause 75 and so we are coming to you from London to apply for licences". Each of those six local authorities will say, "We were expecting to issue about 50 licences to people in our district about whom we know something. How are we expected to cope with issuing 2,500 licences to people from London about whom we know nothing?" I suggest that this really makes nonsense of the local licensing system.
The Minister really has not begun to face up to the practical problem that is going to be created here. In all his observations, I think the Minister has only confirmed what I said; that is, that with this Amendment we shall have dotted about the country a number of, so to speak, Plymouths—local authorities which have chosen to adopt this part of the Bill in the way that Plymouth adopted it for themselves—and what is going to be the

1123
matter with that? If it works all right in Plymouth, presumably it will work all right elsewhere.
If that does not solve the whole of the problem that is worrying the Minister, we already know (because he told us in an earlier debate) that the Government have their plans to introduce their own legislation to deal with private hire cars later on. Why not leave that matter to that Bill? As far as we know, these multiple long-distance operators are not causing any concern or trouble; they are not misbehaving, or anything of that kind. Why not leave them alone until the Government have really thought out what they want to do about that aspect of the problem, instead of catching them in this clumsy net which has been created since the Standing Committee on this Bill in another place, and which still bears all the signs of not having been properly thought out? My Lords, I cannot withdraw this Amendment; I am very sorry.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
7.2 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 72, line 7, after ("district") insert ("or taking them outside a controlled district").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are discussing this separately although the Minister chose to give me his views upon it in advance, which should be to my advantage, of course. This is an Amendment to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of the saving clause. The clause saves those vehicles used for bringing passengers within a controlled district from outside—to them the whole of Part II does not apply—but it does not apply in the case of journeys for taking those people outside a controlled district from within it. The purpose of this Amendment is to bring those people within the saving clause, so that, whether people are being brought into a controlled district or are being taken out of it, they are saved from the provisions of Part II.
This, again, is a matter which is not covered by the Government Amendment which has become subsection (2), because—and I must say it again—subsection (2) applies only to vehicles operating from within a controlled district, and to those
1124
many which will be operating from an uncontrolled district it will not apply. To take an example of how this matter is going to work out in practice as the position is under the Bill at present, without this Amendment, if a noble Lord who lived in an uncontrolled district had a daughter and wanted to send her to a dance in a neighbouring district, which was a controlled district, by hire car, he could send her in a car supplied by an operator whom he knew and in whom he had confidence because he would be sending her within a controlled district, and the operator could operate because that would save him from Part II. But suppose your daughter went straight to the dance from her work in London, and there she was, in a controlled district, and you wanted to fetch her to your home in an uncontrolled district. Could you send the hire car of the firm that you knew to collect her? As the Bill stands you could not, because you would be taking the car into a controlled district to bring somebody out. So the consequence of this would be that the girl would have to find, in the district where she was, a car hire firm, about which she might not know anything, she would have to negotiate the fare, and so on. What an absurd situation this would be, and what useful purpose would it serve?
This matter cannot be of any interest one way or the other to the car hire firms, because over any period of time, surely, the journeys undertaken by an operator in one district are going to cancel out with the journeys undertaken by an operator in the district next door. So it is not going to affect them at all. This is merely going to make the most frightful nuisance and difficulty for members of the public, who will be pointlessly restricted in hiring cars from the firms that they know in order to take members of their family from one place to another. It is really quite stupid, and that situation will be cured by this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I dealt with the substance of this matter when I spoke on the last Amendment because I thought it right that the House should be aware of the Government's attitude towards both. To take the particular example given by the noble Lord concerning the problem of one's

1125
daughter in this particular situation, the answer is that one's daughter, the noble Lord will be delighted to hear, can be collected in the same car because the contract will have been made for going there and returning. If the noble Lord will forgive me and allow me to finish, I should at this stage like to answer his Amendment. I think it right to inform the House why the Government do not find this Amendment acceptable.
The position is that exemption is already provided in subsection (1)(a) of Clause 75 to vehicles, whether licensed or unlicensed, used for bringing passengers into a controlled district, and this permits them to perform contracts made outside the district. But to collect passengers within a controlled district must be the prerogative of a licensed vehicle; and any operator wishing to do this, as I indicated on the last Amendment. may submit his vehicles for licensing. That is the way in which he can deal with this particular problem. He cannot be refused on the ground that any numerical limit is applied to the number of licences which may issued, and if his vehicles and drivers are found fit they must be licensed.
If a local authority behaves wholly unreasonably, there is of course an appeal to the magistrates' court. A licensed vehicle may of course freely take passengers or goods outside a district. No control applies to its departure from a district, and the provisions of Clause 75(1)(a) and Clause 75(2) would appear to permit it ready entry into whatever other district it then enters. I think, with respect, that the question of substance is whether we are going to have this form of licensing control. I think this is in fact not an unreasonable approach, and for that reason I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, it really would be helpful if Ministers would pay attention to the speech that is made in support of the Amendment which is moved. It really is not good enough for the Minister to get up and say that there is no problem here because the contract would be to take the girl in both directions, that the contract would be made at the same time, and that no difficulty arises. I took very great care to ask about the case
1126
where the girl goes from her work in London to a dance in a controlled area. She does not have to be taken by the private hire car into the controlled area; she only has to be fetched from it and taken home into the uncontrolled area.
I sought to intervene and to explain this again to the Minister. if he had given way, he might have had an answer to it. I do not know; I do not think he would have had an answer. I do not suppose that he has one now and, as we are on Third Reading, the procedures in this House count for something. The point has not been answered. Here is a clear case where all that is being achieved is the inconvenience of members of the public. Here is a girl who could so easily otherwise have been carried in a car which she and her parents knew about, and who knew the driver, instead of her having to find some other car in a strange place and to negotiate the fare and so on.
Nothing is being achieved by resisting this Amendment except the inconvenience of members of the public. It is a very disappointing affair. I have a good deal of sympathy for the Minister. He has been frank in saying all along that this matter was sprung on the Government and is so largely unconsidered. It will be a shame if it is to go on the Statute Book in this form. It is not doing any good at all. I am not going to withdraw the Amendment.
Baroness PHILLIPS: Before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree—because most people have been in this situation—that where you are in one place and you have to call a car to take you home and you call the car from the place you know, that that in fact is the most expensive way to do it. Normally, you would call a car at the point where you are to take you back from where you started.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I do not see that at all. A car must make a return journey in either event. If it is a question of hiring a car from a chap I do not know to take me home and ringing up a chap at home whom I do know and with whom I have an account, asking him to come and fetch me, I know which of the two I would choose to engage.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 80 [Interpretation of Part II]:
7.13 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 74, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 30 and insert—
(""operate "means in the course of business to invite and accept bookings for a private hire vehicle and to control or arrange the journey to be undertaken by a private hire vehicle whilst on hire under section 46 of this Act.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 80 which is the definition clause. We have been round this course twice before. The definition of the word "operate" is one which has concerned us for some time. As we have been discussing, on Clause 75, the question of operators and how they act in particular circumstances, the definition of the word "operate" becomes of even greater significance. On two previous occasions, my noble friend and, subsequently, myself suggested that it was to be recommended that the definition be widened. We believe that by adding the second half of the sentence and drawing attention specifically to Clause 46 of the Bill, it acts as a definite signpost and has merit in itself. We believe that the definition clause in many Bills can be widened and improved with benefit. We cannot see why the Government feel that this is to be rejected.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Lord has just pointed out, we have had a discussion on this matter before but that is no reason why we should not have another today. We have had a number of previous debates on most of the questions which we have debated today—and, I think, for a perfectly good reason. That is, the circumstances, which we have discussed on a number of occasions—and the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, mentioned them again—in which this Part of the Bill came to be written into the Bill. I will, if I may, although I may be wildly out of order in doing so, thank all noble Lords on both sides of the House who have made this Part of the Bill more sensible and practical than when it arrived in this House.
Having said those gracious words, I am afraid I cannot go on to say that I find that this particular Amendment would make
1128
the Bill a great deal better. Perhaps I may deal with some of the anxieties which may lie behind it. First, there may be concern that the particular provisions do not bite on people in the hotel trade, travel agents and others outside the field of operating licences who, in the course of their normal duties of providing services to clients of their businesses, may also provide a degree of facilities to invite and accept bookings for private hire vehicles.
We would certainly agree with the principle here. It is not the intention of the Bill that the general services provided by the hotel, catering or travel industries be hindered or that licensing requirements be imposed on such fringe activities. Our view is that the persons referred to are not in the private car hire business and do not accept bookings for private hire vehicles, they put would-be hirers into contact with operators or they accept requests for vehicles and pass them on to operators, much as they might accept requests for flowers and pass them on to the supplier. They are not in a position to accept bookings themselves. If they do so, and provide vehicles on their own behalf from resources available to them, then they are clearly in business as operators and require to be licensed.
We believe that to import the concept that to be an operator a person must control or arrange the journey to be undertaken"—that is the language of the Amendment—might allow many operators to escape the control. Some operators keep lists of private owner-drivers who make their vehicles available for bookings through the centralised facilities of the operator. The drivers are not employed by the operator but work on a commission basis. There may be circumstances in which it could be held that the operator leaves it to the driver, who is also the proprietor, to control and arrange the details of the journey. We would certainly want to be wary of so re-defining the word "operator" as to open the possibility that, by this technique, some could escape control. Therefore, for that reason particularly, we would prefer that this Amendment be not made.
There is a second point; that is, that some may argue that if a private hire firm puts one of his staff, sometimes in a uniform, at a desk or something of that sort in an hotel, a railway station

1129
an airport or an exhibition or in some other similar site for the purpose of making vehicle reservations, no requirement as to licensing should arise. Then, we would part company with those taking that view. In our view, such an employee of a private hire organistion represents that organisation and is engaged upon its business. It would, in our view, be wrong to differentiate on the grounds of the scale of the temporary nature of such an arranngement. They are the two reasons of substance why we are reluctant to accept this Amendment. I hope that upon reflection the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will not press his Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, before my noble friend decides what he will do about this Amendment, may I clear my mind? I understood the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to say at the beginning of his remarks that this definition of "operate" would not apply to someone in a hotel who was simply taking the bookings, because it could not be said that he was licensed to operate. Then, I understood the noble Lord to say that, if a licensed company employed a person in a uniform to sit in the hotel and take bookings, he had to be licensed, although it seems to me he is performing precisely the same function as the original person.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, without breaching the rules of order even more than I am afriad I am in the process of doing, I will deal with that point. There is a distinction; the second person is an employee of the private hire firm but the first is not. It is a point of substance, because if you are a uniformed representative of a particular company permanently in the foyer of an hotel, you are clearly an employee of the firm. If you are simply at the reception desk of an hotel, you are not an employee of the firm and therefore would not be caught by the Bill.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for detailing the particular problems that we have encountered at various stages of the Bill. I do not wish to detain your Lordships further; we have covered most of the points. I cannot say that we are wholly satisfied with the situation as it stands; at least we appreciate the diffi
1130
culties which surround it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Enactments repealed.]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 81, line 51, column 3, at end insert—
("In paragraph 11 of Schedule 8 the words" and 170".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 18 together. These are drafting Amendments to tidy up the repeal Schedule. All these repeals are references to enactments which are repealed or replaced by clauses in the Bill. The first relates to Section 170 of the Housing Act 1957 which is superseded by Clause 15 and the second and third to Sections 271 and 323 of the Public Health Act 1936, both of which are repealed by Clause 27. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 82, line 3, column 3, after ("sections") insert ("271,").
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 82, line 5, column 3, at end insert ("and the reference to section 323 of that Act.")
7.24 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Birk.)
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I rise merely to thank my noble friend Baroness Birk for the letter which she sent to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and me after we had moved an Amendment to Clause 19. The purpose of that Amendment was to delete from the powers to be given to local authority councils the right to establish riding schools. We moved that deletion for two reasons. First, we felt horse-riding was a very dangerous recreation. We do not want

1131
to featherbed young people (or old people, for that matter) and the noble Baroness and I are both fairly experienced riders. But one reads nearly every day in the papers reports of severe accidents which occur to horse-riders; and we had a reminder of that from Montreal only a few days ago. In the Sunday Mirror a fortnight ago there was a tabulated list drawn up by an eminent neurosurgeon. A number of head injuries were scheduled which occured as a result of various kinds of sport. The neurosurgeon stipulated about 20 sports. For boxing, there were 4 cases; for judo, six and gymnastics, 9. But for horse-riding, there were 162 cases, and six of the people died.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and I considered whether we would bring forward our Amendment again at one of the later stages of the Bill. After reading the letter from my noble friend, Lady Birk—which fell far short of what we desired—we felt that we would leave matters as they were. My noble friend Lady Birk suggested in this letter that as soon as the Bill had passed, she would send a circular to local authorities drawing attention to the problems of establishing riding schools and also of the risks involved, mentioning the high expenditure that councils might have to incur in setting up schools at a time when they are supposed to be following a policy of economy. I thank my noble friend for this promise to send out a circular. I hope that there will be some plain speaking in it, and that it will be couched in terms which will tend to discourage rather than encourage local councils from setting up these riding schools.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, now we have come to the end of our deliberations on this Bill, may I say that I think there are some good things in which will be found extremely useful by local authorities. But I feel the section dealing with hire car services does not fit into the Bill and would have been better deleted. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness have been extremely courteous to us from the Government Front Bench. They have been stern in resisting some suggestions which would have made improvements to this Bill. They were hard on the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, just now. I do not think they gave a
1132
satisfactory answer to the point he raised about the girl friend at the dance. The distance quoted would have been precisely the same either way. Some of the provisions in this Bill will be much appreciated by local authorities and save them a great deal of money over the years in being able to take advantage of this Bill instead of having to promote separate Bills. That was the main object of the exercise. A good deal has been achieved in that direction.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Viscount said. If just now I was less than courteous to the Minister, I appreciate that he has been having a most difficult task piloting Part II of the Bill through the House, having to defend so much that is so indefensible. Coming to the general point, as was said in the proceedings on the South Glamorgan Bill, and in support of what the noble Viscount has said, one hopes this is only the first of a series of miscellaneous provisions Bills, because, as has just been said, any general provision avoids the need for provisions in local Acts. The difficulty about provisions in local Acts is that you do not find the local authorities precisely agreeing with one another so that the law on a particular topic, if it is controlled by a series of local Acts, is just slightly different as between one district and another. That is really a great irritation and annoyance; so I would hope that we could have a series of miscellaneous provisions Bills in order to avoid the necessity for a multitude of local Bills having to be promoted.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I do think this is the time to make long speeches, but I should like to thank noble Lords on both sides of the House who have contributed to this Bill. I hope that this "series" does not start too soon or go on too regularly, because this Bill has had a long scrutiny and, because of the weather, it has sometimes seemed even longer.
In spite of what was said by the noble Viscount—and I thank him for his kind words—as far as the Bill is concerned, I think both my noble friend and I have accepted a number of Amendments. A number of new clauses—I will not list them now—have been included as a result of consultation with the local

1133
authority associations, and also as a result of comments and suggestions put forward by noble Lords opposite. On the whole, T think this is a much better Bill than when it came to this House, and I fervently hope that it will lead the way towards preventing most local authorities bringing forward their own private Bills.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should also like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the number of Amendments they have accepted. It is always disappointing when one does not get everything that one asks for, but a great many Amendments have been accepted and I personally believe that this is one of the occasions where the true value of the House of Lords as an amending Chamber can be appreciated. I believe that the whole exercise has been worth while and, although it seems to me the Bill is nothing like perfect and I only wish that we had more time available so that we could get it right, nevertheless, I believe it is a great deal better than it was. Finally, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Sandys for his support throughout the Bill.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION BY PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (COMPENSA TION) ORDER 1976
7.33 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN rose to move, That the draft Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976, laid before the House on 15th July, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, speaking on behalf of my noble friend Lady Birk in moving for the approval of the draft Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976, I think your Lordships will find it helpful if I explained a little of the background to it before dealing with its content.
Your Lordships will recall that under the community land scheme a stage will be reached when it will become the duty of all land scheme authorities to acquire all land needed for all relevant development.
1134
It will then be possible to introduce the final stage of the scheme, the second appointed day, brought in by order under the Community Land Act. As from the second appointed day, the basis of compensation for a land transaction will be current use value—broadly the value of the land in its existing use, taking no account of any increase in value conferred by the grant or hope of a fresh planning permission.
But in the interim period until that stage is reached, compensation will be assessed in accordance with the rules laid down in the Land Compensation Act 1961 (or, in Scotland, the Land Compensation (Scotland) Act 1963), under which compensation is essentially market value. The arrangements for securing the development value of land for the community will lie in the Development Land Tax Act, which received Royal Assent on 22nd July and which comes into operation on 1st August. Under the Development Land Tax Act, Community Land Act authorities, certain other local authorities and some other public bodies which are both exempt from development land tax and which possess compulsory purchase powers in relation to the land being acquired, will deduct from the consideration or compensation on an acquisition from a private owner an amount on account of any development land tax for which the private owner may be liable on the disposal. In short, in this interim period, certain public authorities will buy land net of development land tax.
I should like to make one further background point perfectly clear. The order is concerned entirely with transactions between certain public bodies. It does not affect private transactions or transactions between the public and private sectors, for which the arrangements for the application of development land tax to the market value basis of compensation, which I have just described, will apply.
Turning now to the intention and contents, the order has been laid under the powers contained in Section 26 of the Community Land Act and requires the approval of both Houses if Parliament. The purpose of Section 26 is to apply the principle of the net-of-tax system to land transactions between the bodies specified in that section, that is to say where land

1135
belonging to a local or new town authority, the Land Authority for Wales, the Peak Park Joint Planning Board, the Lake District Special Planning Board or any joint board which may be established under Section 2 of the Community Land Act, is acquired by one of those bodies or by a Minister. The draft order also proposes, in Article 3, to add certain other bodies to that list. I will deal with those in a moment.
Your Lordships will realise that an arrangement of this kind is necessary simply because when one authority empowered to buy net of development land tax is buying land with development value from another such authority (which, by definition, is exempt from paying the tax), the problem arises of which authority is to have the tax benefit. They cannot both have it, and a choice has to be made. The choice proposed in the order is that the benefit should go to the acquiring authority. The proposal is founded on the principle that, in the same way as if the land were in private ownership, the benefit of being able to acquire land net of development land tax should go to the public body which is to develop the land or bring it into development. The selling authority will retain part of any increase in value which may have been due to their own activities, but on the other hand there will be little or no difference for the acquiring authority between buying from another authority or the private sector. For example, where a district council is buying from a county council land which the district council need for council houses, the price assessed under the land compensation rules would be the open market value of the land as a housing site. Under the rules as modified by the order, the price will be reduced by approximately the amount of development land tax which would have been due if the land had been in private ownership. The actual cost would be somewhere between current use value and market value depending upon the factors which have to be taken into account in an actual development land tax calculation, such as the original cost of acquisition by the county council and any expenditure on improvements.
If I may now deal with the technicalities, it was explained at the Committee stage of the Community Land Act that the financial basis for transactions between local authorities is the Land Compensation
1136
Act 1961 or the Scottish Act of 1963. Although the 1961 Act governs compensation for compulsory purchase—and compulsory purchase between public authorities is almost unheard of—the practice is to apply the rules to acquisition by agreement; and it is in this context that the provisions of the order will be most relevant.]
It was, of course, impossible to provide in the Community Land Act, since it preceded the Development Land Tax Act, for a net of development land tax formula to apply to these transactions. Hence the Act made provision in Section 26 with the intention of enabling what one might call a "net of notional tax" basis to be applied by order. Article 4(2) of the order achieves the desired "net of notional tax" result, by modifying the compensation rules to provide that the compensation shall be assessed as the difference between the normal open market value and the amount of development land tax which would have been deductible if the land were being acquired from a person liable to the tax.
Since no actual tax liability is involved certain assumptions, set out in paragraph (b) of the modified rule (2), have to be made: first, that the selling body was not totally exempt from development land tax; secondly, that the time of the disposal is the date at which the compensation is to be assessed; thirdly, that the consideration (from which the calculated amount of "notional" tax falls to be deducted) was the open market value; fourthly, that the selling body's cost of acquisition—for the purpose of calculating notional tax—did not include any tax deducted by that body when it acquired the land. Without that assumption the benefit of the reduced price system would not be passed on to the acquiring body as intended; and, fifthly, that no development value had previously been realised by the vendor body (so that in every case no notional tax deduction is made in respect of the first £10,000 of realised development value, 66⅔ per cent. of the next £15,000 is deducted, and 80 per cent. is deducted from any amount in excess of £160,000).
Article 4(3) has the effect that the modified basis—the "net of notional tax" basis—does not apply where the land being transferred was acquired by the

1137
selling body before 1st August 1976, the date from which the development land tax operates. The reason for this is that, by and large, most land in the possession of land scheme authorities was acquired before the development land tax system was made known—let alone introduced—and these acquisitions were carried out without the benefit of the net of tax arrangements. It was therefore thought right that the proposals, now embodied in the order, should apply only when the vending authority acquired the land in the first place after the operative date of the Development Land Tax Act, 1st August.
If I may turn back now to Article 3, this specifies five additional bodies to whom the modified basis of compensation will apply. I have already explained the relationship of the order to the development land tax system, and if noble Lords have been studying the Development Land Tax Act they may have noticed that these five bodies are among those specified in Section 11(2) as being exempt from development land tax. But they are also authorities who may be authorised to purchase land compulsorily, and they will therefore deduct tax when acquiring land from a person liable to pay it. They are also bodies having functions and responsibilities which are broadly similar to those of the land scheme authorities themselves; namely, to develop land, or arrange for it to be brought into development, for the benefit of the community. The comparability of these bodies with local authorities has been recognised for Community Land Act purposes by including them in the Community Land (Outstanding Material Interests) Order 1976 which came into operation on 6th April. It is therefore appropriate to bring them within the circle of bodies to which the net of notional tax arrangements apply. My Lords, it is a complicated order, but I beg to move.
Moved, that the draft Compulsory Acquisition by Public Authorities (Compensation) Order 1976, laid before the House on 15th July, be approved.—(Baroness Stedman.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, it is indeed a complicated order, and the noble Baroness knows only too well how much
1138
we on this side dislike anything to do with the Community Land Act, which this is, and the development land tax, which goes with it; and I do not notice very much enthusiasm from her own Back Benches either. But after that little salvo, I have to admit that if we are to have these wretched provisions, those provided in this order are sensible and necessary. However, I wonder whether the noble Baroness could confirm that there is nothing in this order Which empowers the bodies specified in it to acquire land compulsorily under the Community Land Act. My understanding is that that is done under Section 18 of the main Act by order of the Secretary of State, and I like to think that all we are concerned about now is the code of conduct that will govern transactions between those main authorities, which are referred to in Section 18 of the main Act, and the further authorities specified in Section 26 and in this order.
Secondly, is this list of authorities exhaustive? It does not seem to me that it is. For example, there is an authority known as the Chichester Harbour Authority, which is exactly on all-fours with the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, but which is not in the order. So what are the criteria by which this batch of five authorities, which I can see have need to deal in land, are selected, and, it seems to me, quite a lot of other authorities, of which the Chichester Harbour Authority is one, do not appear in this list?
7.47 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first question is that his assumptions are right. This order is only for the purpose of assessing compensation. Secondly, the list is not necessarily exhaustive. As he said, there are other bodies which may be able to make out just as good a case as the ones we have included, and any others can be added by further orders if their case is made out. Any bodies that are added to the land scheme as bodies able to buy net of tax from these authorities have to satisfy two conditions: first, that they should themselves be exempt from development land tax on disposing of land in their ownership; and, secondly, that they should possess the compulsory purchase powers. Section 11 of the Development Land Tax Act lists all of the bodies which

1139
are not subject to development land tax. Subsection (1) lists the generalised bodies—the county and district councils and so on—and subsection (2) lists eight bodies by name. Five of these eight bodies possess compulsory purchase powers, and it is these five which we have now included in Article 3 of the order.

PROTECTION OF BIRDS (AMENDMENT) BILL
7.49 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This very short amending Bill passed through all its stages on the nod in another place on 16th July. That was something which I think was most unusual and, in my experience at any rate, unique. But it showed three things: first, that this amending Bill is not controversial; secondly, that it has the Government's blessing; and, thirdly, that there is a need for it. As Parliament has had no explanation whatsoever of the need for this amendment of the Protection of Birds Act 1954, as amended in 1967, because there was no opportunity in another place, may I please say a few words, in spite of the hour being latish, because I think it is important that there should be something—even something brief—on the record?
The fines for any person guilty of an offence against the Protection of Birds Act 1954 have not been changed since that Act was put on the Statute Book. Clause 12(2)(a) of the Act laid down a maximum fine of £25 for especially serious offences. Those offences fell into two main categories: first, excessively cruel methods of killing or taking wild birds, such as the use of gin traps, or the use of blinded decoy birds, or the use of bird lime. Those are three examples which spring to mind and they were described in detail, together with other excessively cruel methods of taking wild birds, in Section 5 of the 1954 Act.
The second category of specially serious offences which are subject to a maximum fine of £25 involve the taking of rare or very rare birds which are listed in the First Schedule to the Act. Incidentally, the very first bird in that Schedule is the
1140
avocet, because the Schedule is alphabetical. This bird is the symbol of the RSPB. At the moment I am wearing the tie of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, whose President is the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who sits opposite. For many years this society has done splendid work for the protection of wild birds and it is extremely anxious to see that this measure reaches the Statute Book.
Section 12(2)(b) of the 1954 Act laid down a maximum fine of £5 for all other offences under the Act. It is sad but true that the purchasing power of the pound since 1954 has fallen so steeply that to impose the same penalty in real terms today the fines would need to be, in round figures, £90 and £18 instead of £25 and £5. Thus this Bill introduces no more than an increase that offsets the inflation since 1954. In addition, the fines under the Protection of Birds Acts are now seriously out of line with the most recent legislation in the conservation field. The Badgers Act 1973 laid down a maximum fine of £100. The Conservation of Wild Creatures and Wild Plants Act 1975 laid down the same maximum fine of £100. The really important reason, however, for this short amending Bill must be the ever increasing demand for, and hence the pressure on, rare species of birds, in particular birds of prey, and the extraordinarily high price that these species fetch on the black market.
Already this year your Lordships will be shocked to know that some 30 pairs of peregrine falcon, the only bird that we have breeding in Britain which is listed in the Endangered Species Bill, have failed to rear their young because either their eggs or their young have been taken illegally. The peregrine falcon is a Schedule 1 bird and offences involving it are subject, naturally, to the £25 maximum fine. It is reasonable to assume that by the end of the breeding season rather more than 40 pairs of peregrine falcon will have been robbed of either their young or their eggs. Acts such as the Protection of Birds Acts are notoriously difficult to enforce. But enforcement must be made more difficult, surely, in that £25 fines, even when costs have to be paid as well, represent a small risk when speaking about a bird such as the peregrine falcon. which has a value, believe it or not, of £500 or more for a mature bird. So,

1141
for that matter, does the golden eagle. Those are the prices at which these birds are changing hands on the black market.
The number of prosecutions under the Protection of Birds Acts gives, unhappily, only an inkling of the widespread and numerous infringements of them. I have a long, sad list of successful prosecutions during the last 12 months or so under the Acts and I am sure that they are only the tip of the iceberg. Rare birds' eggs—for example, the osprey's or the snowy owl's eggs—fetch very high prices from egg collectors, as do the birds themselves, alive or dead, from so-called bird fanciers or taxidermists. In my view, the 1954 Act needs several important amendments to make it more effective. Incidentally, this Act was introduced by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie in another place and amended in 1967 by the late Lord Hurcomb in your Lordships' House. The two Acts together need further amendment in the light of experience.
I hope to have an opportunity to introduce another amending Bill to the 1954 Act in the next Session of Parliament. Meanwhile, Mr. Peter Hardy's Bill which, brought from another place, we have before us now will, if it commends itself to your Lordships, go some way, although in my view not far enough, towards deterring law breakers who seek to profit from the suffering of wild birds and the senseless greed of the collector.
When considering the maximum fines which should be imposed under the Acts, it is reasonable to bear in mind that the prison sentences provided for in the 1954 Act are no longer regarded as an appropriate form of punishment for offences committed under these Acts. Surely this clearly points to the need for stiffer fines. At present, the fines are derisory and are taken in their stride by unscrupulous people. We can do something to make the law more effective if today we give this modest Bill a Second Reading and if it passes its remaining stages on Thursday of this week.
I am exceptionally grateful to my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton for being kind enough to come to listen to this very short Second Reading speech and, I hope, to lend me his support. In fact,
1142
I feel sure of his support. I am also very grateful indeed to the noble Lord the Minister for being on the Front Bench opposite, and I hope to hear from him that this small measure has the Government's blessing. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Chelwood.)
7.58 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to say straight away that I am most grateful that my noble friend Lord Chelwood has seen fit to bring this measure before your Lordships' House. Needless to say, as he anticipated, I can assure my noble friend of the full support not only of myself but, I suspect, of every member of the Party for which I stand. As my noble friend has said, regrettably the pound has fallen in value since 1954 and accordingly the value of collectors' items, he they alive or dead, has gone up far more than one would ever have wished.
The noble Lord mentioned the peregrine falcon. When one considers that each young peregrine falcon commands £250 and each adult £500, one wonders how £25 can be considered an adequate fine. My noble friend said that 30 pairs of young peregrine falcon have already gone and that possibly 40 pairs will have gone by the end of the year. That is at £250 each—not for a pair but £250 for each young bird and £500 for each adult. It is a lot of money, and £25 is not much of a deterrent.
May I say that my noble friend Lord Craigton, whose influence in this field is so great and whose knowledge is so enormous, has asked me to say how sorry he is that he is not able to be in the House tonight to add his views. I told him that on his behalf I would inform your Lordships that the World Wildlife Fund's allocations committee had come unanimously to the conclusion that in their view even the suggested £100 fine was inadequate for the elimination of these racketeers.
May I ask the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply one question which is in no way derogatory of the Bill. I understand that the Government are favourably disposed towards this Bill, for which, like my noble friend, I am most grateful.

1143
I merely want to ask, in a spirit of genuine inquiry and making no Party political points, a question about the Endangered Species Bill which was recently before us. We asked then whether the fines were adequate, and I seem to remember the noble Baroness who answered for the Government saying that the James Committee was recommending increased fines in the case of all Acts of Parliament of this sort which would bring fines up to a level to make them adequate to the rate of inflation as compared to the time when they were introduced. Therefore, at that moment we were asked not to insist on Amendments in Committee and on Report stages because the Government wished them to be dealt with across the broad spectrum in all Acts of Parliament. I merely ask this question. If, as I understand, the Government are favourable to this measure—for which I again say that I am most grateful—ought one's honourable friends in another place now consider increasing the fines which we were advised not to increase in such cases as the Endangered Species Bill? I am slightly puzzled, because that seems to be a parallel to this measure. Having injected that slightly carping note into what is otherwise a happy occasion, I wish to support my noble friend Lord Chelwood.
8.2 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is the second time within recent weeks that the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood, has taken up cudgels on behalf of the animal world and, I am happy to say, this is the second time that on behalf of the Government I have been able to nod rather approvingly in his direction. Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord piloted through this House the Dangerous Wild Animals Bill which received Royal Assent last Thursday. Your Lordships wholeheartedly approved of the Bill, as did those in another place. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, I believe he is hoping to introduce yet a third Bill in the not too distant future. He has struck lucky on this occasion and I hope, if the Bill is suitable, he will complete a hat trick.
As the noble Lord explained, the Bill before us increases the financial penalties under the Protection of Birds Act 1954, to take account of changes in the value of
1144
money over the last 22 years, and to bring them into line with those provided in recent comparable legislation. Let me say here and now that the Bill has the support of the Government. Indeed I am giving away no secret when I say that these penalties, along with many others, are currently under review by the Home Office. We are indeed well aware that many Statutes provide for financial penalties which over the years have simply lost all or a great deal of whatever power they may have had to deter people or to punish them. As your Lordships know, we have been studying the recommendations of the report of the James Committee on the distribution of criminal business among the courts. As may be imagined, this is quite a lengthy exercise, but I can say that one aspect of our consideration will be the revision of the maximum fines imposable on summary conviction for particular offences. That study will inevitably embrace the fines we are talking about today, and the end product would almost certainly be a Government measure which inter alia would take account of the fall in the value of money since 1954.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, was right in his recollection about various things that were said during the passage of the Endangered Species Bill, when I think he may well have been given to understand that this was a matter that we hoped to deal with. The reason why it is being done on this occasion—and I do not want to go all over the ground already covered by the noble Lord, Lord Chelwood—is simply that Mr. Peter Hardy took the initiative to do something in that direction in this Bill. Whether it would be worth the noble Lord's while to talk to his friends in another place, I do not know. I think probably that if the Bill has not yet been through another place it might not succeed in getting through there this session. However, I will certainly convey what the noble Lord has said this evening to the appropriate Department because, as he will know, it is not the Department for which I am speaking here this evening. I will convey his remarks to my right honourable friend in that Department. To that extent it can be said that this Bill will do for a very small area what a Government Bill in a future Session of Parliament is likely to do over a much

1145
greater area of the criminal law. We shall try to do that as soon as we possibly can.
I wish to repeat that the report of the James Committee covers a wide area, and a good deal of thought and consideration as to the kind of action that is to be taken would have to he given to it. Meanwhile, the Government give their approval and support the Bill now before your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STOCK EXCHANGE (COMPLETION OF BARGAINS) BILL
8.8 p.m.
Lord TERRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. Having spent the greater part of my working life in a city partnership it gives me particular pleasure to he associated with a Bill of this nature in your Lordships' House. I say "particular pleasure", because this Bill is concerned with modernisation and simplification in an area which I realise from personal experience is highly desirable, especially for the investing public.
Before embarking on the Bill itself, it might he helpful if I were to spend a short while on matters relating to the existing procedure for transferring securities, because I suspect that the average investor is probably not aware of exactly what is involved. But before doing so, in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding I should like to explain that this Bill is solely connected with a computerised settlement system. It is not concerned with computerised dealing and therefore has nothing to do with the Ariel system set up by certain institutions.
To begin with, it may come as a surprise to your Lordships to learn that settlement work represents between a quarter and a third of the running costs of a London firm of stockbrokers, and despite economies carried out during 1974 those settlement costs continue to rise. Furthermore, the present system has difficulty in coping with the enormous amount of paper that has to be handled at times of high market activity, and certain aspects of the system
1146
complicate settlement as well as bemusing investors of all types.
In fact, both in 1968 and 1972, and again in the first quarter of 1975 there was evidence that the systen was in danger of breaking down, as it did in New York in 1970. I can vouch from personal experience what that meant in Wall Street, because I was working there at the time. The increasing difficulties of managing the settlement arise mainly from the fact that it relies heavily on skilled and experienced staff in firms' offices who carry out complex but routine work. This type of staff is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit, particularly where overtime is involved. Therefore, it seems to be quite logical that the Stock Exchange authorities should decide to simplify the process by transferring the complexities of settlement to a centre equipped with computers and modern systems which can overcome the problems now facing the market.
So far, I have avoided the use of jargon, but in explaining the existing system of settlement, perhaps I may he allowed some licence so that I can spell out my main reasons for believing a change is urgently required. The present procedure is based on what is known as "ticket passing" which, although appearing distinctively simple, is complex, expensive, and creates peak loads during periods of high dealing activity. It is a system under which the broker deals with a jobber, but to avoid the costs and delays of registration into the name of a jobber, the broker is normally paired with another broker dealing in the opposite way. Since in most instances the buyer has dealt in a different amount of stock from the seller, the result is a need to "split" and certify stock. Furthermore, when delivery instructions are passed on a "ticket" from buyer to jobber and thence to the seller, every stock "split" implies splitting the "ticket."
This antiquated and somewhat cumbersome system has operated almost unchanged for the past 100 years. What is now proposed is much simpler, and is called "Talisman", or, in other words, Transfer Machinery and Lodgment for Investors, Stock Management for Jobbers. The basic idea is to set up a depository for the holding of stock passing through the market in the course of the settlement. Its aim is to simplify present practice, while at the same time retaining all the

1147
advantages of the present fortnightly account, although I might add here that the system is highly flexible and can therefore fit in with various international settlement systems which do not operate on the basis of a fortnightly account.
Under the system, the Stock Exchange authorities will set up a nominee company called SEPON, or in other words, Stock Exchange Pool Nominees. This company will have a single undesignated shareholding account in the register of every company participating in the scheme. All sold stock will be transferred from the seller into the name of SEPON and purchasers will receive transfers out of SEPON. This is the "pool" account, to use another piece of jargon, and is a single holding of all stock in the course of transfer.
Finally, the Stock Exchange Centre, acting as the agent for each owner, will maintain within the "pool" account a number of separate accounts for each jobber dealing in the stock. These stock accounts reflect the changing status of stock during the settlement process. I could go into a great deal of detail on the whole question of transfer procedures under this new system, but, if I may, I will confine myself to one overriding matter about which I believe your Lordships wish to be informed when considering the merits of the Bill.
Here, I should like to emphasise that while the legal title of a stock will pass to SEPON on registration with the company concerned, the beneficial rights attaching will remain with the seller until he has been paid. Not until account day will the beneficial ownership be transferred to the jobber, and the selling broker will then receive payment. What happens to the stock of course will depend on instructions given to the Centre by the jobber, but normally it will be used to fulfil purchase orders—or, to employ another piece of jargon, a process called "apportionment". Once this has taken place, beneficial ownership is transferred to the buyer.
My Lords, I have tried to outline the existing and the proposed new systems in the simplest possible way, and I hope that in the process I have not bored your Lordships to excess. But I feel that some of the details of the mechanism have to
1148
be explained as the necessary background to the Bill. I should now like to turn to the positive advantages attaching to this new system, with particular reference to the investing public. By that, I mean all investors, whether investing directly or through pension funds, life assurance companies or unit trusts.
At this point I should declare another personal interest, as a member of the Wider Shareownership Council, by saying that any proposition which simplifies matters for the smaller investors is especially welcome to me, because I am a firm believer in employee participation through equity investment.
My Lords, the "Talisman" system in fact will return to the simplicity of having bargains "settled as dealt" This will eliminate the delays so often experienced today and herein, in my submission, lies the chief merit of this modernising Bill. In future, investors will receive their certificates more quickly and also their dividends and rights issues. At present, there is often a delay when securities are sold "cum dividend" or "cum rights". In transferring those dividends or rights from the seller to the buyer under the new system, these problems will be sorted out quickly by the Stock Exchange Centre.
I do not think my introduction would be complete without some reference to the benefit accruing to the United Kingdom securities industry itself. Although these are naturally financial benefits, they are not unimportant, bearing in mind the role of the City of London as a major financial centre. Not only will there be a saving in costs to member firms of the Stock Exchange, but company registrars also will benefit from a much more even flow of transfers. In fact, I understand that the registrars of larger companies have estimated that this system should reduce their costs by something like 10 per cent. To my mind, any system which can reduce costs and free the time of member firms to concentrate on providing a better service to United Kingdom and international investors merits wholehearted support. It is on this note that I now turn to the Bill itself.
This Bill is necessary to allow the principal legal innovation of "Talisman", which is to enable the transfer of securities by book entry and also to allow an interest

1149
in a beneficial title to be pledged to a third party by entry in a pledged account. Clause 1 takes care of this point by exempting companies from issuing certificates relating to securities allotted or transferred to a Stock Exchange nominee designated by the Secretary of State, in other words, SEPON. This exemption is necessary because the number of shares held by SEPON will be changed from day to day. No useful purpose would be served by requiring companies continually to issue and reissue certificates. In any case, it would impose an intolerable burden on company registrars. Instead, the company will maintain in its registers a running total of the number of securities held by SEPON at any one time.
The next most important point is the need to amend the Stock Transfer Act 1963, to enable new transfer forms to be authorised. Here, I should like to mention that the noble Lord, Lord Clitheroe, who introduced the 1963 Bill into your Lordships' House, has asked me to say that he fully supports this new Bill. The prescribed forms to be used for the transfer of registered securities arc set out in the Schedules to the 1963 Act. Section 3(2) of that Act provides that the Treasury may amend the said Schedules so as to alter the forms or substitute new forms, or add forms for use as alternatives. The introduction of "Talisman" will involve a substantial change in the system for transferring securities dealt in on the Stock Exchange, and will require more radical alterations in the transfer forms than was envisaged when the Stock Transfer Act was drafted. In particular, special forms will need to be prescribed for transfers to and from SEPON. These forms will not need to contain all the information envisaged by the 1963 Act. They will be executed mechanically rather than by hand. Clause 6 widens the powers available under that Act so as to enable such forms to be prescribed, but existing forms, of course, will continue to be authorised for transfers not made through SEPON. Under this scheme, there will be two transfers, a seller's and a buyer's, and it is proposed that duty will be levied on the actual buyer of the stock. This is taken care of in Clause 6. Arrangements have been made in the 1976 Finance Bill empowering the Stock Exchange to
1150
collect this duty on behalf of the Inland Revenue
My Lords, so far as the other clauses in the Bill are concerned, I should like to draw some attention to Clause 2. The efficiency of the new system depends on the early deposit of certificates by the seller in order that securities can be transferred to SEPON. Since the seller may have only recently taken delivery of the securities, it is essential that new certificates should be issued promptly to purchasers. One of the principal obstacles to the prompt issue of certificates is the necessity for them to be under the common seal of the company. The process of affixing the seal may take time, particularly if the certificates have to be sent elsewhere for this purpose. In order to cut out delay, this clause enables companies to have a special seal which may be used for authenticating certificates and for no other purpose. If a company chooses to make use of this facility it will be able to entrust the special seal marked "Securities" to the company registrar, who will then be able to issue certificates without reference to head offices.
Before leaving this clause, perhaps I ought to mention that gilt-edged securities, such as Government and corporation stocks, are not to be included in the Talisman settlement system, as they are, of course, dealt in for cash and not for the account.
With regard to Clause 3, this clarifies the law regarding the keeping of registers and other records on computers. At present there is some doubt about whether company records may in fact be kept in this way. Clearly it is desirable that in these modern times there should be no impediment to keeping records on a computer, provided suitable safeguards are applied, and in fact the 1973 Companies Act included such provisions in Sections 81 and 82. The clause, therefore, requires that any information kept in a non-legible form shall be capable of reproduction in a legible form, and that any duties imposed on companies to allow inspection of records, or to provide copies of them, shall be interpreted as being a duty to allow inspection or to provide copies of a reproduction of information in legible form.
This clause also gives the Secretary of State the power, by regulation, subject to

1151
Negative Resolution procedure, to make special provision in connection with registers and records kept on computers, as the Companies Acts lay down various requirements concerning records, such as the places where they are to be kept and rights to inspection. These Acts were, of course, drafted long before computers were in common use and they naturally assume that the records will be in legible form. But it is important to ensure that the rights of the users of the records are not in any way prejudiced as a result of the information being computerised. Furthermore, it is important that companies cannot use computerised records as a means of evading the law, and it is, therefore, necessary to adapt the existing requirements so as to make them applicable to computerised records. This regulation making power will enable this to be done.
The clause, of course, applies to records generally, but for the purposes of this Bill the most important records are the registers of members and debenture holders. In large companies registers will include thousands of entries, and it will, therefore, be of major convenience for registrars to have this matter put beyond any doubt. It will greatly facilitate the process of keeping the registers up to date, while, at the same time, the safeguards provided in the Bill and in the regulations will ensure that the interests of all those who require access to the registers are fully protected.
I have already spoken at some length rather late in the day, but I hope your Lordships will bear with me a little longer because I must finally deal with an important clause which was not included in the original Bill, but was added in Committee in another place. Clause 5 is concerned with the position of securities held by trustees operating under this new system, and it removes any doubt that might exist as to the ability of trustees and personal representatives to participate in the Talisman scheme.
As I have already explained, under the new settlement system, sellers will part with title in securities to a Stock Exchange nominee before receiving payment and buyers will make payment before the securities are transferred to them from that nominee. It might have been argued in relation to trustees or personal representatives that to part with title before
1152
receipt of the purchase moneys or to pay the purchase price before the transfer of the securities to them amounted to a breach of trust or a failure to administer the estate properly. This additional clause specifically provides that trustees and personal representatives are not liable to be charged with breach of trust on the grounds that they have paid the purchase price before securities are transferred to them or that they have transferred securities to Sepon before receipt of payment. I hope that noble Lords who may have been concerned about this aspect of the Bill in its original form will find this clause satisfactory, as I am aware of some views expressed that trustees need specific authority to participate in the Talisman settlement system.
Finally, I should like to say a brief word about liability from losses arising from the use of Talisman. I am aware that concern has been expressed about this question, as losses might be due to a breakdown in the system or to fraud or negligence on the part of those operating it. But this is not a new problem, and in fact there could be less risk of loss under Talisman than under the present system, as sellers will no longer have to complete open transfers. In future all transfers will be made out to Sepon, thus reducing the opportunity for fraud or error. However, the Stock Exchange authorities recognise the importance of public confidence in this new system, and have accepted that, in the event of a valid claim, they will he fully responsible for any malfunction or misfeasance in the operating of the system. Furthermore, they are taking steps to ensure that anyone who does suffer a valid loss is reimbused quickly.
In commending this Bill to the House I should like to conclude by saying this: a great deal of thought and preparation has gone into this new system. As long ago as 1970 a City Working Party, under the chairmanship of the then Chief Accountant of the Bank of England, published its report. A part of this report contained proposals which formed the basis for Talisman, and as a result the Stock Exchange Council set up the Directorate of Information Systems and Settlement charged with the responsibility for developing and introducing the new system after extensive consultation with representatives of the securities industry.

1153
In November 1972 the Council decided that introduction of the new system could not take place in a single step. It, therefore, authorised the development of CHARM (or to give it its rather dull official name, Checking and Reporting for the Market). This intermediate step, which is based on the "ticket" system, is now substantially in operation. Although no firm decision has been taken by the Stock Exchange, the authorities are considering the use of a pilot operation of Talisman in 1977 which will enable all organisations concerned to obtain practical experience of the new system on a limited scale at a low, and therefore controllable, volume.
I believe that a limited running-in procedure is a desirable prelude to the full working of the Talisman system, but, of course, this cannot be carried out next year unless the necessary legislation contained in this Bill is passed during the present Parliamentary Session. So you will see, my Lords, that there is now some real urgency in this matter, and in seeking the support of the House for the Second Reading of this Bill I would ask your Lordships to bear this rather important point in mind. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Terrington.)
8.28 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Terrington—and I use the word "friend" in a personal rather than a conventional sense—has provided a very full explanation of the complex background to this short and simple Bill. Accordingly, I do not think there is any need for me to go into any further description of the present antiquated machinery or to go into the details of Talisman. I should, however, like to add my support to the Bill and briefly reinforce one or two of the arguments for bringing in this new system.
During the many years that I was working in the Stock Exchange, I have so frequently been aware of the disruptive effects of the peak loading of settlement arrangements on Account Day for transactions carried out during the previous 10 days and sometimes 15 days. If times were more normal, I would have encouraged noble Lords to visit the transfer
1154
department of a firm of stockbrokers on Account Day to see how hectic is the activity culminating in the delivery and payment of stock before the banks close. But the volume of transactions is now so low that such a visit would only reveal a relatively false picture.
My noble friend has pointed out many of the advantages that will be gained by Talisman. One of the most important will be the elimination of the delays that are often experienced by the buyer of shares in obtaining benefits attaching to those shares, dividends and interest payments, rights and capitalisations, takeovers, conversions and so on. This is particularly important in the case of' private investors, many of whom naturally do not understand the technical reasons for such delays, though the institutions are well able to look after their own interests. I have, however, made it my business to inquire of a number of institutions, all of whom are in favour of Talisman in principle, as are the various governing bodies.
There will be a vast amount of detailed work to be done at managerial level by the banks and other institutions in conjunction with the Stock Exchange, which is planning a pilot operation in 1977. There is, therefore, great urgency, as the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, said, that this Bill should pass quickly, so that the myriad nuts and bolts can be put together, since the managers of these institutions are naturally not prepared to get down to detail prior to the passage of the Bill.
I hope and believe that the Government look favourably on this Bill, and I should not like what I am now going to say to be taken amiss in any way, particularly as it is not strictly relevant to the Bill. It is, however, so topical that I cannot resist making a comment. Noble Lords will have noticed in the Press last Thursday that a flat refusal was given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to a carefully reasoned argument by the Stock Exchange for the removal or reduction of the dollar premium surrender. The surrender rule, as your Lordships will know, obliges United Kingdom residents to give up to the Treasury 25 per cent. of the premium attached to an overseas stock every time it is sold. This refusal is a regular annual event which has been the outcome of submissions made by the Stock Exchange

1155
to the Government of the day since this temporary measure was introduced 11 years ago.
It is common ground that greater investment is needed for modernisation and expansion of our manufacturing industries so that our visible exports are competitive. By the same token, it is just as important that the service industries, which are responsible for our invisible exports, are similarly developed. Considering the tremendous part they have played over the last 200 years it would be madness not to build them up to the greatest possible extent. Unfortunately, what occurs in practice is that succeeding Governments impose or maintain positive handicaps to growth and development. The dollar premium surrender is a prime example.
Noble Lords will be aware that this impost was introduced as a temporary measure in April 1965. This action, at a stroke, wrecked the market in North American securities. Not only is this temporary measure still in force, but it was widened to include sterling area securities in 1974, and this has resulted in a large part of the South African market moving to the USA. A few weeks ago there were three firms of jobbers dealing in Kaffirs—as gold mining shares are known in the market. One of the three withdrew before the Chancellor's reply was received, and another immediately afterwards. So now there is only one. I do not consider that this constitutes a proper market. No doubt more business will now move to the USA. What can be the purpose of shackling the City, which is responsible for so many of our invisible exports?
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will forgive me for raising this matter at this time, though I did give him advance warning of my intention. But I do wonder whether many noble Lords, or honourable Members in another place, are conscious of the handicaps that are imposed upon the securities industry by Governments of either Party. Having briefly drawn attention to it today, I will seek an opportunity for further debate on this subject after the Summer Recess. So, my Lords, I will say no more except to reiterate my support for this modernising Bill.
8.26 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think that the House will be immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, for his detailed and excellent speech. This Bill may not be one of the longer Bills to come before the House, but nevertheless it is a very important Bill for the Stock Exchange, for the financial institutions in the City of London, and I believe for the general public at large. The details which we have had explained to us by the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, are not over-complicated—at least compared with some Bills that come before your Lordships—yet these details have to ensure that our system of registering certain company records and documents provides the best and most efficient service to all who may need these records.
The clauses dealing with exemptions from the obligation to prepare separate share certificates and company seals give adequate safeguards to everyone, but it is Clause 3 that I consider the most interesting, and indeed the most important, clause in the Bill. As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, this clause covers the use of computers and non-legible data for company records. This is going to allow the Stock Exchange, and other institutions, to make the fullest use of electronic data processing, so that all securities transactions can be speeded up, with no loss of efficiency, nor of the ability, for those who are concerned in share registers, to obtain legible copies of the information they may need from time to time.
If there is one major point in the Bill that should be emphasised it is this one, since company registrars are already able to give very swift and accurate information, and we have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, of how they approve of this particular clause. Indeed, this clause will enable them to provide the services that they already render more efficiently and, what is very important, at no increased costs. Indeed, there may be decreased cost to start with.
Other details in the Bill we have seen, and heard from the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, cover unregistered companies and the rights and duties of trustees. There is of course this highly technical point which arises in Clause 6 dealing

1157
with the possible alteration of stock transfer forms, but it seems that the entire purpose of this Bill is to improve the efficiency of handling, dealing in, and in buying, selling and examining securities, bonds, stocks and shares.
This process of changing our company law to permit the pooling of Stock Exchange bargains is, I understand, the third and final stage of this acronym called "Talisman" that we heard so nicely explained by the noble Lord. This, apart from ensuring that the London Stock Exchange maintains its competitive position among the leading exchanges in the world—for example, the New York Stock Exchange, together with the Tokyo Stock Exchange—should give, and I believe will give, to the British investing public and to the other London financial institutions the sort of efficient service that the Stock Exchange wants to give.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be aware that these financial institutions do much to promote the well-being and health of the City of London, which, as all of us know, is responsible for such a large proportion of our invisible exports. It is for this reason that I join the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, and my noble friend Lord Cullen, in their plea to the Government to at least re-examine the apparently temporary provision of the 25 per cent. premium surrender when overseas shares are sold. This provides a valuable sum for the reserves, currently in the region of £180 million each year; but there is this sad side-effect for the London Stock Market, and it is the influx of U.S. and foreign brokers into London. Already the United States' dealing side of the London Stock Exchange is minimal, and there are signs as we have already heard from my noble friend Lord Cullen, that other markets are already being affected.
Investors are very sophisticated and intelligent people and when United Kingdom investors find the Government placing what may appear to be temporary barriers before them on such occasions when they wish to invest in any overseas security, its attractiveness must be immensely strong if United Kingdom investors wish to continue investing in overseas markets. Portfolio investment by United Kingdom citizens abroad is still
1158
very strong, but what concerns the financial institutions in London is the cost of switching investments they may make overseas back to the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be aware of the correspondence between his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and other Members of Parliament, but I should like to add my support at this stage to the pleas of both noble Lords who spoke before me. The House may not see the immediate relevance to these pleas for a re-examination of the surrender premium, but the Stock Exchange believes in being able to offer all investors, United Kingdom and overseas investors, a competitive and comprehensive service.
We have been discussing this evening a Bill which will ensure, we hope, that the third link in the "Talisman" system is forged and it will be a notable step in providing the more efficient matching of bargains for investors in the United Kingdom. But the stock market is part of the financial institutions of London, which in turn provide a large part of the City's invisible exports. What we have discussed will help the back end, as I would call it—the administration, the administrative end—of the Stock Exchange, whereas the continuation of the surrender inhibits what I might call the front end of the market, that side of obtaining new markets. Such business is not easily found nor easily retained.
My Lords, we are talking of an institution that can provide an investor from any part of the world with an opportunity to invest in securities which are now collectively worth nearly £78 billion; £47 billion worth of securities were traded in the last year on the London Stock Exchange. The former figure shows that a large proportion of portfolio investment capital finds a profitable home in the United Kingdom, and the latter figure shows that investors find the London Stock Exchange to be a very keen and competitive market. Our discussing these measures this evening will mean that the investors of the world can continue to look on London as providing the efficient service which befits one of the three major stock exchanges of the world.
The "Talisman" system, which I understand was begun in one form in

1159
1971, should be fully operative by 1977 or 1978 and certainly by, say, 1980, but all the advantages of speed, efficiency and security will be maximised by the operation of this system and, what is more, as we have heard from Lord Terrington, the investor and, above all, the small investor, will gain. All the provisions of the Bill seek to increase efficiency while maintaining security for the investing public, and for these reasons alone I am happy to support Lord Terrington's efforts and, of course, the Bill.
8.44 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I wish to say briefly that we welcome the Bill, and I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Terrington, on having taken it up in your Lordships' House after its successful passage through another plcae in the hands of Mr. Shersby. Lord Terrington almost apologised at one point for using jargon, but I found the way in which he explained the Bill most clear and I am sure that if he did use jargon he used it in a way that was most helpful to noble Lords and we are indebted to him for his explanation.
The new Talisman settlement system represents a vital step towards a more modern and more efficient Stock Exchange capable of meeting contemporary demands. It is easy to underrate the many jobs which go on behind the scenes, but without an efficient settlement system it is impossible to have an efficient Stock Exchange. Investors will not be prepared to invest their money on the Stock Exchange unless they can be sure that they will receive their certificates promptly, will get the dividends and rights issues to which they are entitied without delay or fuss and that when they sell their securities they will receive payment on the due date. Talisman is an important advance and will help the Stock Exchange to provide a better service to investors while also benefiting companies and streamlining the Stock Exchange's own procedures. The increased efficiency of the settlement system will, as Lord Terrington explained, bring useful financial savings, benefiting in particular the institutional investors; insurance companies, trade unions and pension funds.
The Bill enables the new settlement system to take effect. It makes some minor but necessary technical changes
1160
in the law relating to the issuing of certificates and the keeping of registers and other records which will enable companies to take advantage of modern computer and other data processing methods. It will thus also in some ways benefit other companies, and not merely those whose shares are listed on the Stock Exchange. The changes proposed are minor but nevertheless well worth while and the Government therefore readily support the Bill. The benefits of the Talisman system to the Stock Exchange, to the securities industry and its users will be considerable and the Government therefore give their wholehearted support to the Bill, which will enable it to be operated to full advantage.
One other issue has been raised tonight, both by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and I am indebted to Lord Cullen for having given me notice that he intended to raise the question of the dollar premium surrender rule. His concern is apparent from what he said, and I am sure he welcomed the support he got from his Front Bench. He conceded, and I am glad that he did, that the question he raised is only indirectly related—I was tempted to say "remotely connected"—with the Bill, but neither I nor, I am sure, Lord Terrington, will complain that he has seized this opportunity of putting his views on the record; there is a connection and I am not denying it. However, he will not be expecting me to add anything to what my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already said in reply to the representations which were made to him by the chairman of the Stock Exchange.
This question of the 25 per cent. requirement has of course been a subject of regular representations to the Treasury by the Stock Exchange, and the Chancellor has recently had the question fully reappraised. The principal objection to the proposed change at the present time is the reduction which would be made in the substantial contribution which the requirement makes to our foreign reserves, which are so vital for the years ahead. The Chancellor made clear in his reply to the chairman's recent letter that while the matter would be kept under review—and I gather that Lord Cullen intends to keep it before your Lordships' House—an alteration to the rules in a way which

1161
would reduce the benefit to our balance of payments in the shorter-term cannot be contemplated, and I am sorry that there is nothing further that I am in a position to add to my right honourable friend's statement. Although, therefore, I am afraid that we must agree to differ on this particular matter, we can, as I have indicated, all agree about the value of the Bill which Lord Terrington has introduced, and on that subject I am glad to give the Government's full support and to commend the Bill to your Lordships' House.
8.50 p.m.
Lord TERRINGTON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Bill and to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for giving it the Government's blessing. I particularly want to say this to the noble Lord because, during the last Session, as some noble Lords may be aware, I found myself at variance with the Government Front Bench over certain matters that concerned the Stock Exchange and, on two occasions, I felt compelled to divide the House on my Amendments. It has therefore given me great pleasure on this occasion to find myself in harmony with the Government. I am most grateful for their support and I look forward to a speedy passage through the House for this Bill. At the same time, I should like to go on record as expressing my appreciation of all the help we have received from the staff of the noble Lord's Department.
Finally, I should like to return the compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, by referring to him as "my noble friend" and to say that, although his final remarks about the dollar premium were not strictly relevant to our debate, I very much welcomed them. As some noble Lords may be aware, I have personally concerned myself with this particular subject in your Lordships' House on a number of occasions in recent years and I am therefore equally disappointed with the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer last Thursday. However, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to pursue the matter on this occasion but, as my noble friend has suggested, we could perhaps return to it in the autumn after our holidays, as a basis for further discussion. Once again,
1162
I should like to thank all the noble Lords who have taken part in the debate.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Reported with Amendments.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment, and recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee; a Special Report made and to be printed.