Lords Sitting of 11 November 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.
The Lord Brabazon of Tara—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

OVERSEAS STUDENTS
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they now have for controlling the entry of overseas students and for monitoring their length of stay.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no new measures in mind. A revised draft of a joint Home Office/Department of Education and Science circular, prepared by officials within the framework of the Immigration Rules laid before Parliament, proposes to offer guidance to colleges on ways of overcoming difficulties in their selection of overseas students. This draft has been circulated to interested educational and student bodies for comment. It differs only in matters of detail and presentation from earlier draft versions seen by outside bodies, confers no new powers on either entry clearance officers overseas or on Home Office officials, and is primarily concerned to make known to principals of colleges facilities which could be of assistance to them in their sometimes difficult task of selecting from overseas candidates for student places.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. If we are to limit the number of overseas students, it is not important that these should be genuine students undergoing genuine courses, and that at the end of their course they should return to the country from whence they have come in order to give advantage to that country of the education we have been able to
650
furnish and to help that country in its progress and development? Is it not necessary to make sure that there is some monitoring in the Home Office of the students coming here, because otherwise there may be certain people who wish to use this form of entry as a method of jumping the queue for immigrants?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords; the position is I think quite clear. Certainly we want to ensure that students are genuine students, and indeed all the arrangements which have been made are designed to achieve that objective. So far as any extensions are concerned, the Immigration Rules lay down—I quote:
"An extension for an appropriate period … may be granted if the applicant produces evidence, which is verified on a check being made, that he has enrolled for a full-time course of daytime study which meets the requirements for admission as a student; that he is giving regular attendance; and that he has adequate funds available for his maintenance and that of any dependants …".
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I quite agree that there always have been and that there certainly should continue to be regulations governing the entry of students into this country, but would not the Government admit that in practice a great deal, if not everything, depends on the spirit in which these regulations are applied? Would it not, in the view of the Minister, be a good thing if, for instance, he made it clear to the officials concerned that students should be admitted unless there is prima facie reason to exclude them, rather than the reverse principle: namely, that they should be excluded unless they can fulfil all possible qualifications?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as I indicated in my first Answer, we have not suggested that we are giving new powers to entry clearance officers, but I think that on all sides of the House there is genuine agreement on this matter. We want to make sure that these people are genuine students.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, I recognise the necessity for regulations and indeed limitation, but will it also be borne in mind that of all the forms of assistance which we give in the world, none is more valuable, both to those who receive it and to ourselves who give it, than the education which is provided in our colleges

651
and universities for those who come from overseas? There is great benefit not only in terms of the prestige and influence of this country, but also in financial terms from the money that is brought in by those who come here for education.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the circular to which he referred seems to be a move in the right direction for selection in order to see that the students who come here are genuine students? But it did not seem to deal with the second half of my noble friend's Question as to monitoring the length of stay. It must be within the recollection of many of us that people who come here originally as students stay on when they are no longer students, and this is a way of evading the immigration restrictions.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I did, I hope, give some indication of the answer to that point when I quoted the particular passage of the Immigration Rules which deals with that precise problem.
Lord RHODES: My Lords, will the Minister make sure that no impediment is placed in the way of students coming from Venezuela at this time?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, without appreciating the full subtleties of that question, all I can say is that I will look into it.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the years spent at the university are included in the period of residence required to qualify for British citizenship?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I should like to look into that question, but my belief is that they do not. However, before finally committing myself I should like to look into the matter.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that instances have occurred of overseas students staying for as long as seven or eight years in this country?
652
Ought there not to be some tightening up of the monitoring procedure so that students who have stayed here beyond a period of, say, five years should have to be registered as bona fide postgraduate students?
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that while it is plainly necessary to monitor certain cases of evasion and of taking advantage of entry here, it is highly desirable to encourage students to come, and that in our desire to exclude a few undesirable people, or inadequately qualified people, we should not give the impression that we do not wish students to come here from overseas?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords, I entirely agree with that. There are two points I should like to emphasise. First, I am sure that it is agreed on both sides of the House that we do not want abuse of the system. Clearly there is no advantage in that. Secondly, we want to offer in the future, as we have in the past, a warm welcome to the many students from both the Commonwealth and outside who come to this country. We are delighted to have them with us.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in my first supplementary question I in fact said how welcome students were and what an admirable investment it was by way of good will and future liaison with this country? Is he also aware that in an earlier Question I asked what percentage stayed here and what percentage went back, and that I was told that there were no statistics available at all? This suggests that at the moment the monitoring is somewhat loose and needs some attention, because the greater the number of genuine students who go back the better for the countries from which they came.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I take note of what the noble Lord has said, but I must point out to him that if one is talking about exceptionally detailed monitoring arrangements one is talking about the recruitment of a very substantial number of additional civil servants.

AFRICAN WORKERS OF BRITISH FIRMS
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many companies have now complied fully with the disclosure requirements listed in Annex 2 of the White Paper Wages and Conditions of African Workers employed by British Firms in South Africa (Cmnd. 5845); how many have failed to do so; and how they intend to treat companies which have either refused to comply or found themselves unable to do so.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, 58 companies have now published the information sought in Cmnd. 5845; 33 have sent full information to the Department of Trade without public reference to its availability; 13 have indicated their intention to publish material in their next annual reports; 15 have made some information available although it falls short of that sought in the White Paper; and 17 have so far shown reluctance to co-operate in disclosure. A further 159 firms originally approached by the Secretary of State for Trade have told the Department either that they no longer operate in South Africa or that they employ no Africans. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade has recently urged companies which have not so far indicated their intentions to do so publicly, soon. He is ready to name unco-operative firms later in the year, when a fuller picture of the response to the White Paper will be available.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that very informative reply, may I ask him whether he agrees that the possibility of assessing the extent to which the code of practice recommended by the Government to these firms is in fact being implemented does not exist until these facts are available; and will he take note that there is a certain amount of public concern about those companies which are thought to be unnecessarily dragging their feet and that the publicity which will result from the publication of the names to which he alludes will to some extent bring force to bear upon them?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords. The noble Lord will recall that in the White Paper requesting this information attention was called to the importance of publicity about the information, and we shall certainly have in mind the noble Lord's comments in considering what form additional publicity might take. But, as I indicated, a little time yet is needed to make sure that all companies have a full opportunity to respond.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that where there is a great disparity in African villages between the rates of pay received by those employed by European firms and those employed locally or unemployed, this can upset the village economy? Is this not a factor which should be taken into account when considering to what extent higher pay scales should apply?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it is a little early to make an assessment of the information that has been published, but it would be necessary to take into account the factor to which the noble Lord calls attention when assessing the overall situation.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, could my noble friend give us the approximate number of employees who are in the service of those firms which have not replied satisfactorily?
Lord ORAM: Not without notice, my Lords. The number of employees is one of the questions to which the firms are asked to reply, and, as I have indicated, not all have yet replied.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, while not in any way opposed to this inquiry, and as a strong critic of apartheid, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government have it in mind to make similar inquiries into wages and conditions of employment of African workers in other countries in Africa, bearing in mind that in South Africa, in spite of discrimination, they are, on the whole, higher than anywhere else on the Continent?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, this question was raised earlier, in the summer, and as I indicated then and as I must indicate again, the Government have made it

655
clear that South Africa is a special case in this matter, having very special social policies of which I think the whole House disapproves.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many of us will want to congratulate the Government on the action that they have taken, and that we greatly appreciate the increased numbers that have replied since I put my Question on this subject in the summer? When they publish the list of firms which have not agreed to this code of practice by way of payment, will they exert the utmost pressure upon British industries in South Africa to see that it is universally carried out?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the increased number of firms which have responded since the Question was asked earlier is encouraging. I will bear in mind, and will ask my right honourable friend to bear in mind, my noble friend's second point about uncooperative firms.

ST. NICHOLAS' HOSPITAL, PLUMSTEAD
3.19 p.m.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals exist for the future of St. Nicholas' Hospital, Plumstead; whether they have taken into account the rapid growth of the population in the nearby new town of Thamesmead; and whether they can make a Statement on the needs of the area for hospital services in the future.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, all area health authorities are preparing lands for the future provision of services to the populations which they serve, taking account of the resources which are or are likely to be available to them and of national and regional policies and priorities. Each authority is responsible for consulting local interests about their proposals before submitting them to the Regional Health Authority, who will then
656
submit proposals to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Greenwich and Bexley Area Health Authority have been considering the need for rationalisation of their services, and I understand that they will shortly publish revised proposals following public discussions earlier this year.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there will be a great deal of relief that no irrevocable steps have been taken up till now? There is a great degree of despondency and alarm over the leaks that have appeared, bearing in mind what an absolute disaster it would be if St. Nicholas was closed because there would be no hospital accommodation for the new town of Thamesmead. The envisaged proposals to go to Greenwich, or the Brook Hospital which are very far away, may represent real hardship in this tightly populated part of the London metropolis. Can my noble friend give me some indication that we will know in good time of any proposals to close this hospital so that we can organise the objections to them?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there are formal procedures for consultation, submission and approval of proposals for closure or major changes of use. Under these, if agreement cannot be reached locally, the decision rests with my right honourable friend. If the noble Lord wishes to know the situation I would suggest that if he has not already done so—and I imagine he may have done so—he communicate with the community health councils, for they play quite an important part in matters of this kind.
Lord MURRAY of GRAVESEND: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that because of shifts in population since the end of the war from the centre of London to places like Thamesmead and the South-East there is a great deal of urgency about this? Will he convey to his right honourable friend the urgency of this matter because of the lack of hospitals?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall certainly do so; but I want to point out that it is a matter in the first instance for the Area Health Authority who are obliged to go through certain procedures.

657
I would suggest that at this stage, if any noble Lord is concerned, something might be done at that level.
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have not consulted the community health councils as I am not very keen upon wasting time on people who have closed minds?

VICTORIA AND ALBERT MUSEUM
3.24 p.m.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the proposed closure of the regional activities department of the Victoria and Albert Museum, in view of its likely impact on regional art facilities.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, before the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum submits detailed proposals for achieving the savings in staff which have been called for as a result of decisions affecting the whole of the Civil Service, he has further consultations to make with his staff. My right honourable friend and I will study these proposals carefully when we receive them in relation to all the issues involved, including the effect on local art collections.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply and appreciating the overwhelming need to reduce public expenditure, may I ask whether he is aware that the proposed staff reductions are no greater than those proposed for the rest of the staff of the Department of Education and Science but that we count on him and his right honourable friend to defend the museums?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, it is certainly part of my function to defend the museums with the help of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. The cut in general was 10 per cent. which I think was announced on 29th July of this year by the Government and it is not evenly
658
applied to every section of every Department. In the Department of Education and Science, the average cut is 10 per cent., but excluding museums sit is 9½ per cent. The cut in museums staff is 11 per cent. This difference arises because the museums have had more growth recently than the rest of the Department. The result of the economies will be to reduce the museums to the size there were in 1970/71 while the rest of the Department will be smaller than it has been since 1964/65. I hope that that explains the small difference.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the economies would be rather better made on purchases and anything else before cutting down the outside work of the museum which has responsibilities to the country as a whole and not just to Londoners?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I have every sympathy with the questioner here; but it is an historical accident that these two museums, the Victoria and Albert Museum and the Science Museum, are owned and run by the Department of Education and Science and that their employees are civil servants. When a Cabinet decision is made, with, I think, the approval of the whole nation, that there should be a manpower cut, it is impossible retrospectively for these two museums to opt out.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, while accepting that there have to be cuts, may I ask whether it is not very unwise that the department of the Victoria and Albert which does so much for the provinces should be the one selected? I feel that it is very like the Admiralty who when they were asked to make cuts always said that they had to be in aircraft carriers.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I made clear that the exact method of producing the necessary cut has not yet been submitted to me. There has been a perfectly unobjectionable leak to the Press of what the Director has in mind. I am not complaining about that; but this must be submitted to me for discussion with my Secretary of State. It is not until we make the final decision (which may well not be very different) that I shall be able to answer that question.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, do these cuts apply equally to the local authorities?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I think not.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is not this particular cut likely to have a very wide impact and may it not be extraordinarily difficult to restore it once it has been made? Would my noble friend suggest to the Director of the Victoria and Albert Museum that economies might be better effected in some other direction?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, this is the kind of thing we shall discuss with the Director. I can assure my noble friend that the Director is extremely reluctant to make this cut—and let nobody think he is
not.
Lord VAIZEY: My Lords, are not these museums essential tools of scholarship and very important to the tourist trade?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am aware of that. One of the arguments for making the cut in the form which has been suggested is that the educational side within the museums will be fully maintained.

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
3.29 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Interpretation and commencement.]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("and")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, which leaves out the word "and". I do not propose to make a lengthy and detailed speech explaining the wide-ranging effect of this Amendment because it is, in fact, consequential upon an Amendment which your Lordships passed at the Committee stage to leave out forestry from the provisions of the Bill. This Amendment
660
is consequential upon that, as are Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 10, 11, 51, 53, 55, 56, 57 and 76. I hope that this set of Amendments produce a happy precedent for the Government in expediting the procedure at Report stage.
While I should like to claim the responsibility all my own in having delved with such care into the intricacies of the Parliamentary draftsmanship, I am bound to acknowledgee a deep debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and her Department for having drawn my attention to the fact that the Bill, as drafted, would be better improved if these Amendments were included. I like to think that such a cordial, happy relationship at the start of these proceedings will continue and indicate the Government's approval of the Amendments which we have made so far. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having drawn these to our attention.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, of course I accept these Amendments as consequential, but the noble Earl is tempting me somewhat when he says how they add to the Bill since they are consequential of noble Lords opposite having hacked great parts out of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, leave out lines 7 to 11.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is also consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 14, at end insert—
("(3A) In this Act "relevant licence" and "relevant tenancy" have the meanings given by Schedule 1A to this Act.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to move Amendment No. 3 and to speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 12, 38A, 38B, 38C, 63, 64, 65, 69, 78, 80 and 81. This package is less formidable than its length might suggest. What we are proposing to do with Amendment No. 3 is to transfer the contents of

661
Clause 2 into a Schedule, enabling the new Schedule to be introduced by Clause 1. Amendments Nos.63, 64, 69, 78, 80 and 81 are consequential to this operation, and I will return to Amendments Nos.38A, 38B and 38C shortly. I am grateful to the noble Earl for agreeing that we should group the Amendments together like this.
The new Schedule contains two points of substance which I am sure will prove welcome to noble Lords opposite. The first concerns board. Noble Lords will remember there was a certain amount of discussion on this subject and questions were raised, particularly by the noble Earl, in Committee. Our policy intention is that no worker receiving board should be protected, just as under the Rent Acts no tenant who receives board qualities for protection. Under the Bill in its current form, where a farmer provides a qualifying worker with board but charges him no rent such a worker will be protected. The worker who paid some rent in similar circumstances would not be protected. This is not the effect that we want to achieve. Paragraph 3 of the new Schedule achieves our policy aim which will be shared by all noble Lords. It also deals in similar fashion with attendance; that is, services which are personal to the occupier and which the landlord provides as a term of the tenancy. For example, if a farmer arranges, as a term of the tenancy, that his wife will take in the farmworkers' washing, this could be regarded as attendance. That does not sound to me very likely, but I imagine that in the agricultural world attendance is not likely to loom large, though the question of board could conceivably do so.
The second point of substance is that in the new Schedule paragraph 4 has been inserted so as to exclude occupants of hostels from protection. The Amendment is complex in detail and noble Lords will remember that this matter was raised by several noble Lords in Committee. I warned that it is a much more difficult subject to deal with than may seem at first glance. We have tried to solve the problem by providing that protection will not extend to a worker sharing a dwelling of four or more persons, where each person has one room, and one room only, to himself.
Amendments Nos. 38A, 38B, and 38C are consequential and provide for the
662
same exclusion in the case of Clause 24 which refers to sharing arrangements. We are grateful to the National Farmers' Union for their help in identifying the residual problems on hostels under the Bill as drafted. Noble Lords will remember that in Committee I said that we were anxious to get any ideas and suggestions on this subject from the National Farmers' Union, noble Lords opposite or anybody else who might be helpful. We have now had this information although it did not come in until the last minute, and that is why this Amendment has been put down rather late.
These Amendments have been framed, therefore, in the light of these recent conversations. I feel that they meet both the concern of the NFU and the points raised in Committee on their behalf by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and by the Opposition in another place. We shall be happy to have further discussions with a view to tidying them up if this proves necessary. Naturally, it will be better if it is not necessary; but if it is, we accept that. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the provisions in these Amendments and that they refer largely to board. It is interesting to know that if washing is taken in this is considered as attendance. I have no doubt that that will have some far-reaching effects. One also wonders whether attendance involves taking in washing; doubtless it does not. We are particularly grateful to the Government for having made the Amendment regarding hostel accommodation, which was something which the NFU were worried about. I was glad my first Amendment at least had a happy precedent in so far as it produced a lot of consequential Amendments. The noble Baroness has also produced a lot of consequential Amendments. If we continue like this we shall get through this stage very quickly. Looking at the list of Amendments at Report stage, we find there are 82 Amendments, and no fewer than 59 are Government Amendments. Two points of substance are being met; for this we are grateful. I cannot help thinking that if there are those who criticise your Lordships' House and what is being done—and there are some who have done so—I hope they will reflect and, indeed,

663
reaffirm the need for your Lordships' House as a revising Chamber.
The Government have at this stage decided that the Bill is insufficiently drafted and that it could be improved by no fewer than these 59 Amendments. As a result of what happened at the Committee stage, the other place are being asked to consider 58 Amendments, of which 40 are Government ones and only 18 come from other parts of your Lordships' House. When we get the Report stage and the Committee stage taken together, we shall in fact be asking another place to consider something in the region of 99 Government Amendments to this Bill. This is highly commendable. I am glad that the
Government have taken the opportunity during the passage of the Bill in this House to improve it. I hope your Lordships will be able to continue with the remainder of this Committee stage with that in mind: we are trying to improve the Bill and make it work better when it comes into operation.
One cannot refrain from observing that the operation of the guillotine in another place will not only prevent our Amendments which will go into the Bill from being discussed before being voted upon, but most will—if events follow expectations —be voted out of the Bill. It will also prevent discussion, presumably, of most of the Government Amendments, which, if events follow expectations, will be voted into the Bill. We have the curious situation that the Government will be in the position of writing into legislation a host of material which will never have been discussed by another place but which will have had the advantage of being discussed in your Lordships' House. This is democratically acceptable. The other material which your Lordships have considered and thought prudent for discussion will be excluded from discussion in another place. That may prove to be a disadvantage. I am glad that the Government have used this opportunity in the Report stage to make these considerable Amendments, and I hope that as we shall give their 58 Amendments a fresh wind, helping to get them through, they will give our modest 23 Amendments a fair wind, too.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there is not very much for me to say in reply to that,
664
except to thank the noble Earl. I do not wish at this stage to go into the difference between revising Amendments and those which hack out the Bill, so that we can go on. I would only point out that a number of these Amendments arose out of discussions in another place. Also, in going through the Bill we found ways in which it could be improved and larified. Many of the Amendments, as I am sure the noble Earl can appreciate, are very minor, but we think they are worth while because they will prevent a lot of doubt and discussion later. I was not sure whether the noble Lord was welcoming them or slapping them all down; but I shall assume he was welcoming them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("subject to subsection (6) below").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is consequential on Amendment No. 1, and I beg to move. Perhaps I might just mention, in reply to the last remarks of the noble Baroness, that of course I was welcoming the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Protected occupiers in their own right]:
3.41 p.m.
Lord SWAYTHLTNG Lord SWAYTHLTNG moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 32, leave out line 44 and insert ("182 out of the last 208 weeks, the last 50 of which have been for the current employer.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is an amalgamation of two Amendments which were fully debated in Committee and so I do not propose to speak at length about it. I would remind your Lordships that the qualifying period at present in the Bill is two years. That is felt by many in the agricultural industry to be far too short. The National Farmers' Union, the Milk Marketing Board and the Royal Association of British Dairy Farmers all advocated a period of five years, with the last year spent in the employ of the farmer whose house was occupied. That, in fact, was the gist of the Amendment I moved in Committee. There was also an Amendment in the name of the

665
noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to make the qualifying period four years.
The general opinion of those who spoke from this side of the House was that five years was too long and four years should be the correct period. This Amendment is therefore asking for a four-year period, with the stipulation—which I regard as most important—that the last year should be in the employ of the farmer who owns the house of which the worker seeks security of tenure. I hope that your Lordships will accept this Amendment and I beg to move.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I am glad the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said earlier that he was seeking to revise, and that he is adopting a constructive approach to this Bill. I welcome that. May I say to the noble Lord that, as he knows, we had this discussion during Committee stage. I am afraid I cannot accept his Amendment. Everyone agrees there should be a qualifying period of agricultural work before security is obtained. The great argument is: how long? The National Union of Agricultural Workers say one year. The farmers, as the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, has quite rightly said, think in terms of five years.
District councils—and they are the people who are really involved in this because of rehousing—say two years. I think they should know, because after all these are experienced people in the countryside. To enforce a one-year stay on one farm before giving security would, I think, discourage mobility. A young farm worker, having served one year on a farm, would be reluctant to move to gain experience or promotion because he would then lose his housing security. Moreover a one-year qualifying period would allow scope for abuse. A farmer could sack a bona fide worker after 11 months. Finally, a farm worker who has been in agriculture 10 years would lose security if he moved on. I think this would be against the spirit of the Bill, which, after all, is intended to give housing security to farm workers; so for those reasons, which I have put concisely, I believe we cannot accept the Amendment.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment, for various reasons which were given on
666
Committee stage. I support it particularly because it protects the farm worker who has been working for a long time in agriculture, who changes his job and then might be liable to lose his protection. Of course, that would not be desirable. Later, during this stage I want to move an Amendment and I hope that either the Amendment itself or the principle behind it will be accepted. It concerns retired workers who have been working on a farm for a long period and they will have the right to stay in their village, at the expense of the proverbial lorry driver who had an agricultural job and went to work as a lorry driver. This Amendment would stop the abuse in a case where you could have a farmer with a relation or friend working on another farm. He could employ such a relation or friend for a short time and then allow him to retire. The retiring man could then take advantage of whatever precedence there might be for a retiring agricultural worker. That would be quite unjust to the ex-farm worker who has become a lorry driver and who would be pushed out by really a trick, in order to get a house for a farm worker.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, said, this Amendment is a compromise resulting from the two Amendments one of which was put down by the noble Lord and his friends and one which was put down from these Benches at Committee stage. What we are really trying to do is to get the correct balance between, on the one hand, the farm worker's right of security of tenure of his house and, on the other hand, the obligation of the farmer to lose the right of using that house to house a person working on the farm. That is what the Bill is all about and, indeed, the Government recognise that this is a balance which has to be drawn. The place where they have drawn the balance is two years: they think that is the correct place at which to put the fulcrum.
One can argue for a long time exactly where the line should be drawn. We do not believe that this Amendment is necessarily any better than any other Amendment that might be put down, but we think it has considerable merit. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said it would stop the mobility of labour. I find that terribly hard to believe; that is, that if a

667
person has worked on a farm for 12 months this Amendment will stop him from getting other work simply because he loses the right of security to a house. There has not been any restriction on the mobility of labour before this Bill was brought in. Indeed, I believe that one of the effects of the Bill is that it will actually restrict the mobility of labour. At the moment, the Bill gives a person who has worked in agriculture for just two years—anywhere, on any farm—the right thereafter to claim a statutory right to the security of tenure of any agricultural tied cottage in which he happens to be living, irrespective of the length of time for which he has worked on the farm of which the house forms a part.
I am bound to say I think that is unreasonable and that there should be a minimum qualifying period of time on a farm before a person can claim a right of possession to a house on that farm and before the person can remove the right of possession on that house from the farmer for whose farm the house was arranged. As at present drafted, the Bill means that a man can go to work on a farm and he can give in his notice after a week and go to work in a local factory. But he would still have the right to occupy that house in perpetuity, unless the provisions of this Bill operate.
A farm worker could—I do not say would—move every six months; in two years he could make four moves and at each of those moves he could claim the right of occupation and security of tenure of each house into which he moved. I believe that is going too far. I said at the Committee stage that it was rather like a person working for Sainsbury's for two years and then at. Tesco's, and because he has worked at Sainsbury's it gives him a legal right of possession to something that belongs to Tesco's. I cannot believe that to be right. If the Bill is kept as it is it could be used by some—I do not say many—as a quick route to a local authority house or to a protected tenancy.
It is a matter of argument and individual choice exactly where the hurdle should be placed over which a person has to go in order to claim the right to occupy a house and before the farmer has to lose the right of that house to house a worker in agriculture for his farm. I believe that the
668
period of two years in the Bill as drafted is too short. It should be longer and that is the reason why we have suggested four years. More than that, it is essential that the person should have to work on a farm and 12 months is not a long time, before he can claim the right to that house in which he can remain in perpetuity. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will see this as a constructive Amendment. We want the Bill to work. I think they have got the fulcrum in the wrong place.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House has said all that needs to be said in opposing this Amendment, but I want to point out that the period was decided upon as a result of the publication of a Consultative Document in which people suggested different lengths of time. As has been said, the NUAAW suggested one year, others suggested different numbers of years. This is a decision based upon the consultation which then took place. I must point out that if the Amendment were carried, an agricultural worker could work on the land almost all his life and in the last year of his employment fail to gain security because he was not employed by the farmer concerned for a period of 12 months. Clearly that is quite wrong. It is the principle involved here which I want to support. We want to give security of tenure to agricultural workers. We have decided that a period of two years indicates a man's bona fides; he is an agricultural worker and dedicated to agriculture. The principle is that security should be applied to an agricultural worker who undoubtedly will move about from farm to farm. I am quite sure that the Amendment should be resisted because it is against the principle itself.
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, I feel that the argument used by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that it is absolutely necessary that the worker should be for one year in the cottage for which he proposes to have security of tenure carried tremendous weight. Therefore I feel that we should press this Amendment.
Lord PEART: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that I agree that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has looked at this matter constructively. There is no political argument about it; it is purely a question of what is the right period. My

669
noble friend Lord Collison, who is a distinguished leader of the Agricultural Workers' Union, and a moderate leader in the best sense, comes out on my side. We had this argument in Committee. There was a difference of opinion between the Liberals and Conservatives—I do not want to rub that in. All I can say from my own experience as an agricultural Minister and from my connection with the industry is that I think that what I have suggested is reasonable. After all, the people who will inevitably be involved in this matter are the rural authorities and these people will be reasonable. As I have said before, I was once a member of a rural authority, though I admit it was a
mining area, but we had also great agricultural interests in the county of Durham. I think two years is a sensible period, so I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will not make this an issue of Division. In the present circumstances, even though he has put his point of view constructively, as also did the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, I believe that two years is the right period.
3.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 152; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Airedale, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Alport, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Amherst, E.

Exeter, M.

Munster, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Falmouth, V.

Netherthorpe, L.

Ampthill, L.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Amulree, L.

Gisborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Arran, E.

Gladwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Ashdown, L.

Gray, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Auckland, L.

Greenway, L.

Onslow, E.

Balerno, L.

Grey, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Banks, L.

Gridley, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barnby, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Barrington, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Reay, L.

Belstead, L.

Hampton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hankey, L.

Renwick, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hanworth, V.

Robbins, L.

Blakenham, V

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Roberthall, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harvington, L.

Rochester, L.

Brock, L.

Hatherton, L.

Romney, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hawke, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Hayter, L.

Sackville, L.

Burnham, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Byers, L.

Hereford, V.

St. Helens, L.

Caccia, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Caithness, E.

Howe, E.

Sandys, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Savile, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Ilchester, E.

Seear, B.

Carrington, L.

Jessel, L.

Selkirk, E.

Chelwood, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Clancarty, E.

Kinnaird, L.

Sharpies, B.

Clitheroe, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Shuttleworth, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kinross, L.

Simon, V.

Coleraine, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Spens, L.

Congleton, L.

Long, V.

Stamp, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Loudoun, C.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Luke, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigavon, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathspey, L.

Daventry, V.

Mansfield, E.

Swaythling, L. [Teller.]

De Freyne, L.

Marley, L.

Tenby, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Terrington, L.

Derwent, L.

Middleton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Eccles, V.

Molson, L.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Monck, V.

Wade, L.

Elles, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monk Bretton, L.

Westbury, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

Arwyn, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Aylestone, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Pannell, L.

Birk, B.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Bowden, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brimelow, L.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Brockway, L.

Hunt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Rhodes, L.

Burntwood, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Castle, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Segal, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Cole, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Vaizey, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

Milford, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wise, L.

Gardiner, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
Lord PEART Lord PEART moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 8:
Page 33, line 33, leave out from ("dwelling-house") to ("a") in line 34 and insert ("in relation to which a person ("the occupier") has").
Page 33, line 45, leave out ("to work").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these two Amendments are concerned with minor drafting points. Amendment No. 6 removes an unnecessary reference to "exclusive occupation," and is similar to Amendments made to Clauses 3 and 4 in Committee, as reported in Hansard at columns 1627–28 for Friday, 22nd October. Amendment No. 8 simply removes unnecessary words. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord PEART Lord PEART moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 35, line 44, leave out ("under this paragraph") and insert ("made under this paragraph—

(a) may contain transitional and other supplemental and incidental provisions, and

(b)").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is common form for an order-making power to cover the possibility of transitional, supplemental and incidental provisions. This is a prudent policy which is worth following in relation to this power. My Lords, I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 36, line 1, leave out ("or in forestry").
Page 36, line 2, leave out ("or in forestry").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, these Amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Clause 2 [Meaning of"relevant licence" and"relevant tenancy"]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 12:
Leave out Clause 2.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment formally, as I have already spoken to it in dealing with a large bunch of Amendments starting with Amendment No. 3. My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 4 [Protected occupiers by succession]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 5, line 4, leave out ("in such occupation") and insert ("having such a licence or tenancy").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment which ought to have been included among 11 similar Amendments which were agreed together in Committee, as recorded in Hansard at columns 1627–28 for Friday, 22nd October. It is consequential on the

673
long series of drafting Amendments moved then. My Lords, I beg to move.
Clause 6 [No statutory tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to Crown or to local authority, etc:]:
Lord PEART Lord PEART moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 41, at end insert ("or, in the application of this Act to the Isles of Scilly, the Council of those Isles").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to link this Amendment with Amendment No. 66, which stands in my name and in that of my noble friend Lady Birk. This Amendment is simply consequential on those which we agreed in Committee to apply to the Isles of Scilly. Amendment No. 66 describes the Isles of Scilly more correctly than does the Bill at present. My Lords, I beg to move.
4.9 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 19:
Leave out Clause 6.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I am possibly daring the wrath of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, because it is an Amendment which was moved very convincingly in Committee by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. But it is such an important feature of this Bill that I thought it worth while again addressing the attention of the House to this point. Clause 6 removes certain sections from security of tenure; and, of course, we are dealing only with security of tenure for agricultural dwellings. In Committee, my noble friend Lord Ferrers recalled that in 1975 there were approximately 1,200 evictions from tied cottages. When one looked at the cases of eviction of those bodies that come within Clause 6—these are local authority landlords, the Greater London Council, the Housing Corporation, the Commission for the New Towns, a development corporation, a housing trust and so on—the number of evictions was 29,000. This alone leads one to feel that there is a very serious case for thinking about security of tenure for those tenants who come within the ambit of Clause 6.
When she replied to the Committee's debate the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made two points. She said, first, that Clause 6 is in direct line with the Rent Act 1968, an Act which, we recall, is now eight years in the past—I will not say out of date. Secondly, the noble Baroness said that many of these bodies under Clause 6 do not own agricultural cottages. With this I must agree. In fact I agree to such an extent that one wonders why on earth many of these bodies are in the Bill at all. What does the Housing Corporation have to do with land? What does a housing trust have to do with land?
I have looked at all the bodies which possibly do or do not own agricultural land that come within the ambit of this clause and I would suggest to the House that although the Crown Estates, which is a body on its own and has nothing to do with the Monarchy, is one of the largest agricultural land owners in Britain it is to be excluded. If one takes the county councils, many of them have small holdings of up to 50 acres. Again a great number of cottages are involved and there is no security of tenure for these people. If one recalls the kind of security of tenure that these people have, it amounts to four weeks. After that they can be evicted for committing some offence which offends the owner of the property. If one looks at the development corporations one recalls, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will recall, the case of Milton Keynes. Before Milton Keynes was developed that body bought a farm of 350 acres, together with a number of cottages. In my view, there are bodies that come within the ambit of Clause 6 which would be exempt from security of tenure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, finally argued in defence of keeping the clause in the Bill that it was a commitment of her Party that they would bring about security of tenure for county council housing tenants, and I am sure that this is a very sincere commitment. However, I would suggest to the House that there is no reason on earth why the Party opposite should not make a start now on this fairly small sector of agricultural dwellings, thus giving their tenants security of tenure. I beg to move.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for coming back to this point which we dealt with at the Committee stage. It seems to me to be quite extraordinary that a Bill should be produced which gives security of tenure to one specific body of people. Only 10 per cent. of all the people who occupy tied cottages—that is, just agricultural people—are to be given security of tenure. Great arguments have been put forward as to why this is desirable and necessary. Then, to use the expression of the noble Baroness, one "hacks out" of the security of tenure all those people who are in agricultural tied cottages which belong to the Greater London Council, the Commission for New Towns, the Housing Corporation, the development corporations, the housing trusts and all the properties owned by the Crown. I know that there is a precedent for this but it seems to me to be a thoroughly bad precedent.
I think that it defeats quite enormously the argument of the Government when they say, "Security of tenure is being given to all people in a certain industry except to those who happen to be living in cottages owned by public authorities". If security of tenure is right—and I accept that noble Lords opposite think that it is right—I cannot for the life of me see why it should not be universal. I do not think that the Government put up much of a show of an answer at the Committee stage and I rather fancy that they will not be able to put up a much better show of an answer at this stage. I state once again that I think it is wrong to exclude these bodies. If the Government intend in the future to make arrangements to cover all types of people, f think that they should cover everybody, not merely selected types of people.
4.17 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that he was daring my wrath. He dared my wrath constantly on community land, housing and many other matters but I think that both of us have always come out of it smiling. What puzzles me about this is the alacrity with which noble Lords opposite want to bring under protection and security of tenure many other dwellings and classes of occupation. I am very interested to hear it. I find it extremely
676
hopeful and optimistic for the future that we shall be able to look at the other industries and areas in which there are tied cottages. However, as I pointed out at Committee, and I am sorry to have to repeat myself again, this is a Rent (Agriculture) Bill. It is concerned with agriculture and therefore with tied cottages. As I think both noble Earls have pointed out, the exceptions are those which have been carried through from the 1968 Rent Act.
So far as the question of this being out of date is concerned, one of the reasons for wanting to table a whole series of Amendments—at least, they were tabled and then withdrawn because noble Lords opposite did not feel that they fitted in with the Bill—was to attempt to prepare the ground for the consolidation of what I agree is extremely complicated legislation. I do not want to labour the point that I made in Committee about extra-statutory arrangements, but I must say again that our intention is that in practice agricultural workers who are housed and employed by exempted bodies shall be given the same security of housing, even though the Statute does not apply to them. I think that within the context of a Rent (Agriculture) Bill this is so far as anybody can go without getting into an area which would be ultra vires.
So that there is no misunderstanding, I must return to the main issue which arises from the noble Earl's desire to remove the clause. In the Bill we are affording security of tenure along Rent Act lines. Where there are compelling reasons to depart from the 1968 Rent Act, obviously we need to make special provision, but in this case it is eminently reasonable to follow the pattern which is already set. Nothing new has been done; we have not hacked out anything new. We have carried on and taken into this Bill the provisions of the 1968 Act, which seems to me, in the context of the Bill, to be a right and proper thing to do. I hope, having given it another extremely good airing, that the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, there is just one comment I should like to make on this Amendment. It seems to me that there is a rising dissatisfaction in this country at the all-pervadingness of the State. If we have a situation, however

677
good or bad the precedent may be, of the State and other various organisations being given privileges which are not allowed to other people, and if the State is capable in some cases of being just as arbitrary as private individuals, that is one point. The next point is the provision of undertakings that people will not behave arbitrarily to the people who are not protected but who are in similar jobs in private industry who are protected—an undertaking like that is not as good as the power of the law. My third point is that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said she found it ironic that we should be advocating controls. We are not advocating controls; all we are advocating is that the law should apply to everybody and not just to private individuals. It should apply to all it should apply to the Crown, to local authorities and to everyone.
Lord MONK BRETTON: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of this Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. I question whether the pattern established in 1968 is really right. There is a principle involved, and it is this. Is the public body necessarily more likely to be interested in the welfare of its employee than is the private employer? I do not believe that that is the case. It could possibly be that the public body, by diversion of resources in an uneconomic way, might do more for the employee than the private employer might be in a position to do. But whether that is right I question very much, because I believe this is one of the ways in which our economy becomes warped and does not work as it should. So I am very glad that my noble friend has stuck to his point.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I am utterly bewildered on this point. I do not in the least understand the ideological principles which are being applied by the Government in this respect. Is it thought that the behaviour of Government Departments which hold certain properties in trust for Her Majesty are so immune from all possible error that it would be desirable for them to be exempted from prescriptions which it is desirable should be applied to the reprehensible private owners of similar properties? Alternatively, is it thought that in the end security of tenure should be given to all tenants in whatever occupation
678
they are engaged, in which case I do not understand—
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I—
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, if I may just finish my sentence. I really do not understand why the opportunity is not taken on this occasion of edging the principle a little further.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am interested in this argument. Why is it that the noble Lord and many others who are now pressing this case excluded from this Bill forestry and those people employed by the Forestry Commission?
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, may I draw attention to one thing that is rather interesting. I think this is the first occasion on which the immunity of the Crown has been challenged.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Lord on that point. I am speaking about the Crown Estates, which is a corporate body, a very large landowner and is nothing to do with the Crown itself. It is a corporate semi-quasi public Government body.
Lord PARGITER: Belonging to Her Majesty, my Lords.
The Earl of KINNOULL: No, my Lords; it does not belong to Her Majesty. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will confirm that.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, I should like to answer on behalf of the foresters, having put my name to the Amendment. I think the reason why we have excluded forestry is that there has not been a report satisfactorily conducted at the moment. There is a report in progress and I think we deleted forestry until that report had been put before the public.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, perhaps I may just intervene about the position of the Crown estates, because I happen to be the first Crown Estate Commissioner. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, is wrong in saying that the property does not belong to the Crown: it does. What happens is that the Crown of its own volition may cede its rights for the period of the

679
reign but when the time comes a new Sovereign has the opportunity of resuming the property. I hope that this will help the House and clear up the point.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whether there is any special significance in excluding housing associations which are—perhaps not entirely but very largely—urban in character. Is it the intention that these should be more widely used in connection with agricultural land? I ask that question because one of the things which worries me about the Bill is the long-term future of housing. Today there are only two types of house really being built: one is for owner-occupation and the other is the council house. Those are the main types of house that are being built on a large scale. Housing Associations provide some but not a very large number. When the houses on agricultural property, particularly the ones referred to in the Bill, have to be replaced, who is going to do it? It is very unlikely—in fact today it is most unusual for any house to be built to rent. Rented houses have become practically non-existent. What are we going to do in these cases? If you want a man for a temporary period for a specialised job in a specialised place, it is very unlikely that a house will be built for that special purpose. It is possible that he could use a housing association, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness thinks that is a possibility, because the future provision of agricultural houses is of great importance, and I dare say there are many of them that are in bad condition and need to be replaced. How is it intended by the Government that these houses should be replaced?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to one or two points. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, spoke about ideology. I would point out to him that while everybody is getting very hot under the collar about the tied cottages and tied houses in other industries apart from agriculture, after the 1968 Act the Conservative Government had four years from 1970 to 1974 to deal with this problem, if they had wanted to do so. So I think this new-found horror about this subject is slightly misplaced.
680
Speaking on the housing association point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I agree that housing associations are unlikely to be affected by this. This is a straight grouping from the 1968 Act. Whether when the Rent Acts are reviewed it will remain in this form I agree is something which should he looked at. With regard to the other points raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I think he will understand if I do not deal with the replacement of housing because it really is not part of this Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, with the very greatest respect, it is really vital to the whole question.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am very sorry, but the Amendment of the noble Earl is to leave out Clause 6, which deals with the Crown and other bodies which are in a different position from the tied cottages in the Bill. I think the House will agree that it would be wrong if I or anyone else were to wander too much from the Amendment, because that would be time-consuming and would not be relevant to the point we are discussing.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, sits down, could she answer the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, as to how she thinks the housing associations will become involved, if they are, with the replacement of agricultural cottages?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have just said that it was very unlikely they would be involved, but as they were part of the whole grouping set out in the 1968 Act, that was how they would come in. I went on to say that when we were looking at consolidation, this is something which probably will be looked at, but I gave a simple reason for it.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for all those who supported this discussion. I should like straight away to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for inadvertently misleading the House. The noble Earl will realise that any comment I made was no criticism in itself of the Crown Estates.
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is adept in moving a very short

681
brief with great skill. I am not sure that we have got much further than the previous stage of the Bill. Of course, my Amendment was a probing Amendment. I was particularly wishing to question the noble Baroness on the commitment of the Government as to when they would bring in a Bill to give security of tenure to all tenants. This is the fundamental point of my Amendment. The noble Baroness has not committed herself as to when the Government would bring in a Bill of this nature, but I hope that our debate today will have encouraged the Government to do so in the very near future. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Grounds for possession of dwelling-house subject to protected occupancy or statutory tenancy.]:
4.32 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 38, line 3, at end insert ("and in considering the suitability of the accommodation the Court has power to decide that temporary accommodation whether in a dwelling-house or otherwise, fulfils the condition in this paragraph, where such temporary accommodation is offered by the local authority on the understanding that they will provide as soon as practicable alternative accommodation under this sub-paragraph and sub-paragraph (2) above.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will be aware that some of us have laboured under a certain difficulty throughout the whole of the Bill by being landlords, farmers, or even tenants. Not many of those on this side of the House are in fact farm workers. I think that the same might also apply to noble Lords opposite, in that there are more landowners and landlords, farmers and tenants, than actual farm workers. We have tried to accept this difficulty, and I hope your Lordships will realise that the Amendments we have put down have been to try to improve the Bill, even though it may run quite counter to anything noble Lords opposite have felt prudent. They have not been put down for any selfish or individual purpose.
My Lords, we come now to the nub of the Bill over which there is no kind of Party feeling at all, as I like to think. This is simply a part of the Bill which will either make the Bill work, or will not
682
make it work. As the Bill was originally drafted, a duty was placed upon the local authority to use their best endeavours to rehouse farm workers who left the employment on the farm on which their home was, but who elected to stay on in the house. We have all had our disagreements over the principles of the Bill and the way in which it might operate. But the Bill has produced a head-on dilemma; namely, that if farm workers are to be given the right to stay on in their houses after their employment on the farm has ceased, how can farmers provide accommodation for their incoming farm workers? That is the problem. It is as simple as that, and as difficult as that. We have always felt that the use of the phrase "best endeavours" was not strong enough. That is why on Committee stage we put forward three Amendments to get over the problem of "best endeavours" which we considered to be ineffective when the real crunch came, and when the local authority said, "We have used our best endeavours but we cannot house".
It is at that point and thereafter that all the provisions of the Bill become ineffective. We have tried to find ways of improving this. In Committee stage your Lordships decided to accept an Amendment which imposed upon the local authority the duty to rehouse, but the Amendment was careful to impose a time limit. Although it would be perfectly clear from the Bill as amended that the local authority would have a duty to rehouse a worker who came within the provisions of Clause 29, the local authority may not find itself physically able to do so, even possibly for two years or more.
My Lords, we then went on to another Amendment, accepted by your Lordships, which said that when the agricultural dwelling house advisory committees said that suitable alternative accommodation should be provided as a matter of urgency, then the local authority should provide it within three months. On Committee stage, concern was expressed by a number of noble Lords, and quite rightly—indeed, I expressed the same concern myself—as to how a local authority would manage to fulfil this obligation if physically there were no houses to offer. This could well be a perfectly feasible situation.
It was stressed on a number of occasions during Committee that temporary accommodation should be allowed. This is what this Amendment seeks to do. I readily recognise that there are drawbacks to temporary accommodation, but we have sought to draft our Amendment to take into account the views expressed on all sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, at column 772 of the Committee stage on 29th October, said:
"Would not the difficulty"—
of rehousing where there were no houses available—
"conceivably be solved if the obligation on the local authority were to provide alternative accommodation, either temporary or permanent? I suggest that the matter in dispute might be eased if there were an obligation on the local authority to provide temporary accommodation even if permanent accommodation were not available."
So we have sought to produce this Amendment which says that the court has power to decide that temporary accommodation, whether in a dwelling-house or otherwise, is suitable accommodation. In other words, the accommodation could be a house or a mobile home, but the outgoing farmworker would be protected because the accommodation has to be suitable. He cannot just be put into any kind of broken-down building which may be damp, because then it would not come under the ambit of being suitable alternative accommodation. On Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Collison, quite rightly stressed this. The noble Lord said:
"I merely think it necessary to say that the workers set great store by the word 'suitable'."—[Official Report, 29/10/76; col. 773.]
I agree; the noble Lord is entirely right, and he was entirely right to stress it. The noble Lord went on to say:
"Temporary accommodation would have to be suitable. To put a person into a tumbledown house even temporarily or into long-time occupation of a caravan, I do not think would be satisfactory. I realise there is a problem. Always bearing in mind the fact that the local authority cannot be charged with an absolute duty which they cannot fulfil, I hope that some solution can be found."
This Amendment is our effort to try to find that solution.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, quite rightly pointed to another problem. He said:
"Is not one trouble of the proposed Amendment that all experience shows that temporary
684
accommodation becomes permanent, and that there will be very great danger if this Bill provides for temporary accommodation? "—[Official Report; col. 781.]
So to meet the very real objection that temporary accommodation should not become permanent accommodation, we have suggested that temporary accommodation can be used only where the local authority have given an undertaking that it is their intention to provide permanent housing as soon as practicable. In other words, the local authority must say: "We accept the obligation to rehouse. We have not got a permanent house at the moment. We intend to provide a permanent house as soon as possible. Until we can, here is a house you can go into immediately and it is suitable to your requirements."
Even if that offer is made to the outgoing farm worker, he has still the right to go to the court and say, "I do not agree. This is not suitable alternative accommodation", and it is only then that the court has to decide whether in fact this temporary accommodation is suitable alternative accommodation. The Amendment deliberately refers to the case where the temporary accommodation is offered by the local authority. This is designed to cover the case where the local authority has got temporary accommodation of its own which it can make available, and it is also designed to cover the case where the local authority can arrange for accommodation, other than that which the local authority itself possesses, to be made available, such as happens in the North Wiltshire scheme, whereby local landowners may make available to the local authority houses which they do not at present require, on the understanding that it is on a short-term basis and the owner will be able to get back possession of those houses. If this Amendment were accepted it would enable local authorities to go to the local landowners and say, "May we use that empty house for the purposes of this Bill?"
The only drawback I can see to this Amendment—doubtless, the Government will produce many more, but I hope not, because I have tried to think of all the drawbacks—is that the Government will say, "Yes, but the outgoing farm worker will be losing his security of tenure by moving into temporary accommodation,

685
and the whole of the Bill is designed around giving security of tenure". I recognise that that is an objection to the Amendment. But, of course, the farm worker has lost the security of tenure of the house he is in anyway, because the ADHAC will have said that, in the interests of efficient agriculture, he should move out of that house. They will have said, in effect, that in the interests of efficiency of agriculture he should lose the security of tenure in that house. Therefore, the only real drawback is that the outgoing farm worker will be making two moves instead of one, one into temporary accommodation, and one later into permanent accommodation. I accept that this is a drawback; but nothing in the world is perfect, and I venture to suggest that this would be a small price to pay to enable agriculture to function better.
I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. I do not claim it is the perfect answer, but I suggest that it would be a major step towards reconciling, on the one hand, a situation where the ADHAC says that a house is required for efficient agriculture and that house should be made available, with, on the other hand, the fact that the farm worker has a right to suitable alternative accommodation. That is the purpose of our Amendment. It is to try to get over a real problem which this Bill, as originally designed, contains. I hope that the noble Baroness will accept that this is a constructive effort on our part, and that she will think it so constructive that she will accept the Amendment. I look forward with heady anticipation. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, whatever the final form of this Bill when it is enacted, it is, as my noble friend, Lord Ferrers, says, vitally necessary to the agricultural industry that the Act should work. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, accepts that the Amendments we are trying to make today are put forward for that purpose and none other. I am convinced, and I got the feeling on the last day that we spent in Committee, that the Committee was beginning to reach the same conclusion: that unless some provision is made for temporary accommodation to become available this legislation will not work. The outstanding weakness that still remains in this Bill is that it does not provide a solution to the
686
acute industrial problem that will arise when a house that is urgently needed for a key agricultural worker is occupied by a statutory tenant for whom the housing authority simply has not got a house available. The need can be identified by the ADHAC; the duty to rehouse can be accepted by the housing authority, but if there is no suitable alternative accommodation the man is stuck and no one can move in to perform the work to keep food production going.
The only solution to the problem is that either the statutory tenant or an incoming worker is, at some time, somewhere, going to have to be provided with temporary accommodation. I moved an Amendment in Committee to provide that a farmer should be allowed, free of planning restraints, to place a caravan on his farm, if the housing authority had not acted after receiving a recommendation to rehouse from the ADHAC. That would have housed temporarily the incoming worker. There were several good objections to the way that Amendment was drafted, and it was withdrawn. This Amendment is much nearer to that moved by my noble friend Lord Burnham in Committee, in that it provides for temporary accommodation to be made available to the statutory tenant—that is, the outgoing worker—provided that the court decides that such accommodation is suitable.
The Government's objection to this kind of proposal is that there would be no security of tenure in the temporary accommodation. The whole of the Government's case that this Bill will work hinges upon their confidence that the local authority will provide a house, so that nine times out of ten the alternative accommodation for the man who is stuck in a key worker's house will be a council house. But what kind of security of tenure would the statutory tenant have if he were provided with a council house? Council house tenants do not live under the protection of the Rent Acts. A district council can give a council house tenant 28 days' notice for any reason, even if for no better reason than that the council wants the house for some other person. They then apply for a court order for possession, and the judge makes an order almost as routine, unless there are special circumstances. If that is the kind of security the Bill is offering to the displaced

687
farm worker, how can the Government quibble about lack of security in temporary accommodation? My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Ferrers.
Lord BURNHAM: My Lords, when I moved a somewhat similar Amendment in Committee I got a very sympathetic reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. She said:
"…this is a very attractive proposition where it is workable. I accept that. I also have great admiration for the work in the North Wiltshire scheme."—[0fficial Repor, 21/10/76; col. 1643.]
I believe I might have had an even more sympathetic reply if it had not been two minutes to midnight. But my Amendment had the defect, from the Government's point of view, that it was made to Case I, where alternative accommodation was being provided by someone other than the housing authority. As a result of a great deal of thought, this Amendment seems to meet that point, in that, from the Government's point of view, from the worker's point of view, his immediate landlord will be a local housing authority, and therefore all fears about the actions of irresponsible and wicked landlords have been removed.
In supporting the Amendment, I would only say that if there were an adequate supply of council houses in the country the whole of this Bill would have been unnecessary and we should all have been wasting our time. But we know this is not the case, and unless some form of temporary arrangement can be made the Bill will be totally unworkable. I cannot believe that the Government want this. This Bill is absolutely crucial to farming, and should be acceptable to the Government and the worker. I very much hope that the Amendment will be accepted, or something very like it.
4.50 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I hope you will forgive me if I ask the noble Baroness to cast her mind back to Friday, 29th October, when the problem of temporary accommodation was discussed. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and the noble Baroness were kind enough to concede that we were trying to be helpful and constructive, particularly to the hard-pressed local authority who are going to shoulder so much responsibility in this Bill. Indeed,
688
the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was kind enough to say at column 770 that he would follow up this very point. Rather sadly a few moments after that, in a debate that I thought was perhaps one of our most constructive, it was necessary to have a Division because the Government felt that they could not saddle the local authority with the responsibility to rehouse within the three months the farm worker who had been judged by ADHAC to be vital.
I believe, as I have since my noble friend Lord Burnham originally raised this question of temporary accommodation first on Second Reading and then on 21st October (when, as he said so rightly, certain noble Lords were getting rather tired because it was so late), that this Amendment would really help local authorities. It may be that the noble Baroness would prefer to see this use of temporary accommodation only when the ADHACs have ruled the rehousing case to be urgent. I should like her to give me an answer as to whether she might accept a slightly differently drafted Amendment to cover just those cases rather than all the cases.
I agree that I do not like the word "temporary" accommodation, but, so far as this Amendment is concerned, the accommodation will not really be temporary. Again it must be suitable. It will be a condition, as the noble Baroness will have noticed, that the local authority must have offered permanent accommodation as soon as is practicable. So I do not really see that this is temporary. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell me if she would perfer a time limit for the local authority to rehouse in a permanent accommodation.
This power by the local authority to seek out, maybe from the private sector, I hope—and indeed I know that the noble Baroness hopes—will not be used much, but we all hope that most local authorities will be able to fulfil their duties and rehouse farm workers in suitable permanent accommodation. But we live, so I am told, in times of financial stringency, and there may be times when a house is not available at that moment. This Amendment offers a way out for the hard-pressed local authority, and I hope that the noble Baroness will confirm, when she replies, that she is prepared to

689
give local authorities this help. If she is not going to give this help, what other help is she going to give them? I hope that the noble Baroness—I am afraid I am hoping for a lot from her today, but I continue to do so—realises the logic of this Amendment. I hope she realises how sincere we are being in offering it as a possible way out. It may not be the whole or perfect answer for the problem. But, as in farming, I have yet to find a perfect answer to any problem.
I hope one day that the noble Baroness will become more familiar with farmers. She said she was not at the beginning of this debate, but perhaps she is now becoming that now that she has sat for so long next door to the noble Lord, Lord Peart. I hope when she does become more familiar that she will not find we are such a reactionary set of backwoodsmen as she thought we were to start with. This Amendment is a farmer's answer to a farmer's problem. I beg the noble Baroness to accept it as such.
4.55 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if it is an indication of my good intent to say how happy I am to become more familiar with farmers, I can only say that the name Robin seems to be coming from my lips day after day on my return home, as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and myself have been in discussion constantly over the matters in this Bill. I not only accept but I know very well from the number of discussions we have had not just in the Chamber but outside it that he is absolutely genuinely, and other noble Lords who have spoken, trying to find a solution to this difficult problem. I am not pretending that there is not a problem and that we are not also very concerned in trying to find a way to deal with it. Unfortunately, I do not think that this Amendment, and indeed any Amendment that is concerned with temporary accommodation, can deal with a situation where the whole point and basis of the Bill is the question of security of tenure for the tenant. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, expressed his concern and he said that he did not like the word "temporary". Fie would like to find a different way round it, and asked how "temporary" was "temporary". This is one of the cruxes of the problem.
690
The Amendment would mean that, provided a housing authority undertakes to provide, as it says, fully suitable alternative accommodation as soon as practicable, they may offer the statutory tenant accommodation which is temporary "in a dwelling-house or otherwise". There are several things about this. If he does not accept it, then the landlord would most certainly have a ground for possession against him, and if the court then grants an order he would be liable to eviction. I must stress again that I see both the good will and the amount of thought and effort that has gone into trying to find the right drafting for it; but when one comes down to it and has to interpret the words of the Amendment, which is what would have to happen, it differs significantly but not from the present system which the Bill is seeking to replace. Under the present system if a farmer obtains a court order against the ex-worker then normally, but not always, before the eviction can take place the local authority will treat the person and his family as homeless people and offer them temporary accommodation of some kind.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, would the noble Baroness repeat that? I just missed what she said.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was explaining, as I am sure the noble Earl is well aware, that under the present system if a farmer obtains a court order against an ex-worker then normally, but it is not always the case, before a physical eviction occurs the local authority will treat the person and his family as homeless and offer them temporary accommodation of some kind.
In many cases later on—and this is going on all the time even now—the family, or the person, will be offered permanent council housing. As the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, and other noble Lords pointed out we are quite aware that there is a severe shortage of housing generally. As the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, said, if there was enough housing there would not be any problem at all. This we know, and it is also the distribution that is the problem in this case. Although in many cases he may be offered permanent council housing, although it is not always assured, his

691
length of stay in temporary accommodation may be prolonged and the temporary accommodation could be bed and breakfast. It may be a hostel of the old Part III variety, it may be short life property, or it may even be in a hotel.
It still seems to me that it does not get round and deal with the problem that we are trying to deal with both to house people and to make it as easy as we possibly can for the farmer, in the interests of agriculture, to house the workers who are essential to the farmer and need to live there, and also to give security of tenure.
If a definition of temporary accommodation was inserted, as the Amendment seeks to do—and one has to be frank about this and accept it—there would be a great temptation on housing authorities to let the matter rest, once they had discharged their obligation in the interests of efficient agriculture to accept responsibility for the ex-worker's accommodation. This is not a criticism of local authorities. It is simply saying that in a difficult situation, if there are people in temporary accommodation, the term as soon as practicable "can be stretched. It is almost like a piece of string. It really does not answer the problems involved in the whole question of temporary accommodation. As I think I said to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, when he raised this matter previously, in relation to the North Wiltshire scheme, I have great sympathy for this question. I have said in other debates on housing that the Government want to encourage the kind of initiative involved here, which I personally have always regarded as an extraordinarily good one. This is an entirely voluntary scheme. It also depends on the housing in the area and the type of area, and it is not the type of scheme that one could build into an Act of Parliament for application everywhere.
I only wish that I could find some way out of the problem that would meet the point of noble Lords opposite and which would cover the point which I am keeping in mind all the time; namely, the security of tenure for the statutory tenant. If a way could be found to weld these matters together, I should be the first person to do it. I have spent much time trying to see whether we can do this, but
692
unfortunately there is no way down that road at all. I will not again go over all the arguments which I have put and which my noble friend put during the Committee stage. What is being suggested is contrary to what we are trying to achieve in the Bill. While I appreciate not only the good will behind the Amendment, but also the extraordinary amount of meticulous work which has gone into trying to find various versions of an Amendment which would meet the problem, I must say, very regretfully, that I am afraid that this Amendment does not meet the problem, and I must ask for it to be withdrawn.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, I am disappointed by the reply of the noble Baroness. She said that the temporary accommodation could be bed and breakfast, but as the temporary accommodation has to be suitable I do not think that that would be classed as suitable. I take on board the point about this made by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, and the fear that farm employees have. The noble Baroness did not reply to the point made by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley concerning a time limit on the local authorities to rehouse.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should like to clear up that point. I do not think that one can do what is suggested. It would not work; it is not practical. We accept that local authorities must be given the opportunity and must be given their own autonomy, and while certain provision has been made in the Bill this has been altered. It is a question of semantics. The noble Earl feels that it will strengthen the position, but I do not think that there is much difference in the wording. It would be an impossible situation to say to a local authority that these people must be rehoused within a period of "x" months. That just cannot be done. Local authorities would be in default.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, the Government are trying to do the impossible. Like everyone else here, I am speaking as a farmer and we all want to give the best possible housing to the people whom we employ. Everyone would like to give them the best houses, in the best positions and in the best conditions. But that can be done only if the house which one owns can be used for the people whom one wants to employ.

693
If one suddenly finds that a worker who has given notice and does not want to continue working for one refuses to move from a house, an impossible position arises. One does not want to turn the chap out on to nothingness, but in order to be efficient and practical one simply has to have the house in which the man is living.
I agree that what is proposed is not ideal, but at least it is a halfway house. At least it enables the farmer to avoid turning the man out on to nothingness, but gives him something of a temporary nature before he gets a better house, or moves to another area, or gets another job with which a house is available. I am afraid that the Government have saddled themselves with a really impossible situation. I have listened to all the debate and I have had considerable experience in these matters, and if we are to have this Bill then we must have something which is a halfway house. What is proposed is only temporary, and it would give one a lever to get the local authority moving on rehousing a person. Nothing better has been suggested, and it would be much better to have this Amendment than nothing at all. Otherwise the situation will he disastrous for the farmer and for the farm worker, and we will get into a terrible muddle.
Of course one wants to give people security of tenure and to do all one can for them, with all the good will in the world, but under this Bill one cannot do that, and it cannot be done under the conditions of the industry. This is a halfway house, and one could then put every possible pressure on the local authorities—who in my opinion are probably the people who should deal with this—to provide, out of the houses they have, a house for someone who has been working for one. I should like to support the Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, before my noble friend moves in with his demolishing tactics on the arguments of the noble Baroness, I should like to say something. Let us assume that she is correct when she says that what is suggested is impossible; that is her case. I assume that we are not dealing with an enormous number of cases. I understand that the difficulty is that the Government are loth to put on to the local authorities
694
a burden which the Government feel the authorities cannot stand. Would it not be possible for the Ministry of Agriculture to set up a fund so that where a local authority genuinely has not an alternative house to meet this type of case, a new house could be purchased by means of the fund. That is all one is seeking.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, at the outset I should like to say that I have greatly appreciated the help which the noble Baroness has been kind enough to give me between the two stages of the Bill. She has tried to understand the points we are making and has tried to see whether she could help. I found her last remarks most endearing, when she said that she would like to help but did not quite know how. Well, I could say to her that she could help quite easily simply by using the words, "I accept." But despite her great efforts, she found that she could not help. I must say that I found the arguments wholly and totally unconvincing. The trouble here is that this is a Department of the Environment Bill, not a Ministry of Agriculture Bill. Were it a Ministry of Agriculture Bill, the views of that Ministry would have been much more forcibly noticed in it. Of course, the roller coaster has gone out from the Department of the Environment and has simply flattened every single agricultural argument that has been put forward.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, "But, normally, if a court order for possession is given, before an eviction actually takes place the local authority will rehouse in temporary accommodation". If that is so, and if it happens now, why is it that we cannot incorporate this procedure in the Bill? It is nothing new, apparently; according to the noble Baroness, it happens. But then she says, "We cannot incorporate it in the Bill".
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt on that point. The point is that it happens at the moment when one gets to the end of that particular line, but it is not a very pleasant happening in housing, social or human terms at all, as I know the noble Earl will agree. What I am anxious to do is not to perpetuate or extend it. What we are hoping will happen in the case of this Bill is that,

695
because in so many cases there will be the opportunity to plan ahead, if a farmer knows that a worker is retiring he can go to the local authority in advance. This he cannot do at the moment because, unless the local authority has housing to spare (and how many of them have?), they are going to have to say, "We cannot do anything until there is a possession order granted or these people are actually homeless". So, as I see it, this Amendment will extend this area, which we want to decrease and not extend.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it may be that the noble Baroness would like to decrease it. I absolutely accept that it is not the perfect answer. Temporary accommodation is not the perfect answer. But I believe—and I say this with the greatest of respect—that the noble Baroness and her advisers are living in a certain degree of cloud-cuckoo land. The idea that one can look forward and that local authorities, if they know there is a requirement, will be able to house people, simply is not the case in my experience. I heard only a short while ago of some people who have had their names down for five years on a local authority housing list, and they have not been able to be offered any accommodation. Then the noble Baroness said that temporary accommodation is not perfect because it might be hostel, hotel or even bed and breakfast. I did not find that argument at all convincing. My noble friend Lord Caithness said quite rightly that that would not be suitable accommodation, and of course it would be completely unsuitable.
My Lords, this Amendment was devised as a result of all the views that
were put forward at the last stage of this Bill by people like the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, my noble friend Lord Burnham, the noble Lord, Lord Collison, and so forth. We know that it is not perfect; we know that it is not suitable as a permanency; but we have tried to build into the Amendment every possible restriction. The noble Baroness said, "What is temporary'? It is as long as a piece of string". It is not as long, as a piece of string; it is only temporary, until the local authority re-house in permanent accommodation. That is the obligation which the Government, of their own volition, wish to place upon the local authority; we have merely spelt it out a bit more in the Bill.
The Government have always said that they want agriculture to be successful and efficient. What we have maintained throughout this Bill is that there is a point here where you will not move, where you will get the problem of the security of tenure jamming with the right, the duty, of agriculture to provide housing. I do not see why there should not be some provision for temporary accommodation; and, my Lords, I really believe that if this Bill is to work this Amendment should be made to it. I hope that your Lordships will agree that, imperfect though it may be, it is at least a step forward to enable agriculture still to operate.
5.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 136; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Birdwood, L.

Chelwood, L.

Airedale, L.

Blakenham, V.

Clancarty, E.

Amherst, E.

Boothby, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cobham, V.

Amory, V.

Bradford, E.

Coleraine, L.

Ampthill, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Congleton, L.

Amulree, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Arran, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Cornwallis, L.

Auckland, L.

Burnham, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Banks, L.

Byers, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Barnby, L.

Caccia, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Barrington, V.

Caithness, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Daventry, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Berkeley, B.

Carrington, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Derwent, L.

Lloyd, L.

Romney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Long, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Ellenborough, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Luke, L.

St. Davids, V.

Elton, L.

Lyell, L.

Sandys, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Savile, L.

Energlyn, L.

Malmesbury, F.

Seear, B.

Falmouth, V.

Mancroft, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ferrers, E.

Mansfield, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Marley, L.

Somers, L.

Gainford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Spens, L.

Gisborough, L.

Meston, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Grafton, D.

Middleton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Gray, L.

Molson, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Grey, F.

Monck, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Gridley, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Strathspey, L.

Hankey, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Swansea. L.

Hanworth, V.

Monson, L.

Swaythling, L

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Tenby, V.

Harvington, L.

Terrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Moyne, L.

Teviot, L.

Henley, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Tranmire, L.

Hereford, V.

Newall, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Hives, L.

Northchurch, B.

Vickers, B.

Howe, E.

Northesk, E.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Onslow, E.

Wade, L.

Ilchester, E.

Platt, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Kilmany, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Kinnaird, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Westbury, L.

Kinross, L.

Reay, L.

Wise, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Robbins, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Bacon, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Castle, L.

Jacobson, L.

Rhodes, L.

Champion, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Chorley, L.

Kaldor, L.

Segal, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Shinwe, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Snow, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stone, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

McCarthy, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

Milford, L.

Willis, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Fletcher, L.

Oram, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pannell, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 38, line 7, leave out ("tenant") and insert ("tenancy").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is really quite a straightforward uncontroversial Amendment. Case III of Schedule 3 is modelled on the corresponding Case I of Schedule 3 to the Rent Act 1968. There is, however, at present a minor difference in wording. The
698
ground for possession in the Bill is that, leaving aside rent, any other lawful obligation of the tenant has been broken. The same ground for possession under the 1968 Act relates to a lawful obligation, not of the tenant but of the tenancy. The purpose, therefore, of the Amendment is to bring the Bill into line with the 1968 Act. I beg to move.
The Earl of KINNOULI,The Earl of KINNOULI, moved Amendment No. 21A:
Page 39, leave out lines 16 and 17.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is another Amendment which was moved at Committee stage, but it is one of some importance and for that reason I raise it again. There was another reason. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whose clarity on these issues is something I always much admire, on this particular occasion may have misconstrued one of the points in her brief. I shall probably do the same when I try to explain the purpose of the Amendment.
We are dealing with Case IX under Schedule 3 which is one of the cases where a landlord may possibly recover vacant possession of a dwelling house in certain circumstances. He may, for instance, recover it if it can be proved that it is required for either himself or his immediate family, and I think I am right in saying that under this Bill Case IX goes further than the identical case in the Rent Act 1968 because it includes grandparents. I should explain that under Case IX it is up to the court to decide finally whether or not the case has been proved; and the court's judgment is that no greater hardship will be caused by granting the order than by refusing to grant it.
The purpose of my Amendment is to delete the words:
"and the landlord did not become landlord by purchasing the dwelling house, or any interest in it, after 12th April 1976."
That was the date, I believe, when the Bill was published. This, in fairness to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is a situation identical with that in the Rent Act 1965, where again words of this sort come in. I believe the difference between this and the Rent Act 1965, which was incorporated in the 1968 Rent Act, is that here we are dealing with a food producing industry as against just general housing in the Rent Act.
To try to illustrate what these magical words mean, I would suggest to the House —and the noble Baroness may correct me if I am wrong—that if a farmer wishes to pass his farm on to his son, these words do not apply because the son has not purchased the farm, and therefore Case IX applies. However, if a farmer buys a farm today and if one of the cottages on the farm is occupied, then it comes either under the 1968 Act or under this Act. In fact, these magical words would apply
700
and Case IX would not apply. If a farmer bought a farm and there was vacant possession of a cottage and he employed someone, Case IX does apply. So what we are talking about is a very limited case; but I would submit that there is a substantial case for the good of agriculture that these words, which add very little to the substance of the Bill, should be deleted. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is perfectly true that we had a discussion on this point in Committee and I explained why the Government found it unacceptable. I will look at it again, but I did not think there was anything on which I was unclear on this Amendment. However, if it was not clear then perhaps I may briefly spell it out as clearly as I can now. The principle underlying the Bill is simply that it is not right that a landlord should, after the Bill was published—and this is the point, and the noble Earl realises that that is the date that was set—buy a house occupied by a person protected by the Bill and then be able to seek an order against that person in order to occupy the house himself or use it for one of his relatives. The identical principle is to be found in the 1968 Rent Act. When the noble Earl said that of course it does not apply to some, he is wrong if he is reading paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) with the word "or" after each of them. If the son inherits, then this is a different situation again. He does not buy it and therefore he can get possession of it.
I am speaking for myself, and my understanding is that if he were buying it for his son then these two lines would operate and apply to all the categories above:
"and the landlord did not become landlord by purchasing the dwelling-house, or any interest in it, after 12th April 1976."
I am sure the noble Earl, who is very knowledgeable about property, will agree that if there was not such a provision houses with sitting tenants could be bought at low value and after a period of occupation by the landlord and a relative sold profitably with vacant possession. This is not what Case IX is intended for, and the words the Amendment seeks to delete are there to prevent this particular speculative activity.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords that is the bull point of my argument

701
which I thought the noble Baroness misunderstood last time. From reading what she said, I thought she implied that if a farmer bought a cottage already occupied and added it to his farm, it would come under the ambit of the farm and the Bill. I do not think that that is correct. If he buys a cottage almost as an investment, the tenant of that cottage will be protected under the Rent Act of 1968. That was the point I was trying to make.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, subject to anything else to the contrary, I do not think that that would work in this case. As the noble Earl is aware, we start from different premises. Usually in the agricultural rent situation you start with either no rent or a nominal rent, and from a protected occupancy you have to become a statutory tenant. This is rather different from the usual case under the Rent Act. To give another example, if the landlord did not become landlord by purchasing (for example, the son was given it by the father) he could use Case IX, but the court would have discretion not to grant that order under paragraph 2. There they could quickly detect that there was a "fiddle". Where it does not involve giving and the family, it is necessary to have this safeguard.
In the Commons the Government extended the list of close relatives in Case IX by adding grandmothers and grandfathers to meet a request made by the Opposition in the other place. I mention this as an indication of our willingness to afford landlords reasonable grounds for repossession where there are family needs to be met. All one is saying is that after the publication of this Bill, the landlord—apart from the cases mentioned—is not in the situation that he would have been in if he had bought the house before publication of the Bill. That is clear and it is a safeguard which it is necessary to have in a Bill of this sort. I hope the noble Earl is now convinced and will withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I appreciate that it is a very technical point. I am not entirely happy that the point has been covered but I do not intend to press this Amendment. I do not favour a "fiddle", but I believe a farmer has a greater claim
702
to apply Case IX procedure than an ordinary landlord. His is the case of an industry, a food producing business, and in the previous stage of this Bill that was emphasised. Perhaps this point could be looked at again.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if I may go into the specific points the noble Earl raised, which are technical, I will write to him about them. I will look in Hansard in case there are some points I have not entirely covered.
The Earl of KINNOULL: I am grateful, my Lords. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25:
Page 39, line 33, leave out ("relevant licence or") and insert ("tenancy or, as the case may be, the original").
Page 40, line 4, after ("below") insert (""original tenancy", in relation to a statutory tenancy, means the tenancy on the termination of which the statutory tenancy arose").
Page 40, line 5, leave out ("relevant licence or") and insert ("tenancy or, as the case may be, the original").
Page 40, line 9, leave out ("relevant licence or") and insert ("tenancy or, as the case may be, the original").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, these Amendments are drafting Amendments. They will bring the provisions of Cases XI and XII of Schedule 3 to the Bill in line with the other provisions of the Bill and the generalised definitions which at present appear in broadly similar terms in both Part II and Part III of the Bill. It makes it much more comprehensible and does away with one or two irregularities in drafting.
Clause 10 [Effect of determination of superior tenancy etc.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 10, line 23, at end insert ("and in determining for the purposes of those subsections whether a long tenancy is a tenancy at a low rent, there shall be disregarded such part (if any) of the sums payable by the tenant as is expressed (in whatever terms) to be payable in respect of rates, services, repairs, maintenance or insurance, unless it would not have been regarded by the parties as a part so payable").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Clause 10 is about sub-tenants, and the Amendment deals with a case where the sub-tenant is protected by the Bill against his immediate landlord who in turn holds a long tenancy at a low rent from the head landlord. To achieve complete parity with the 1968 Rent Act, however, the Bill needs to make its definition of long tenancy at a low rent more precise than it does at the moment. The Amendment therefore makes the necessary additions by indicating what sums payable by the tenant are to be disregarded. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 10, leave out lines 24 to 27.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential on Amendment No. 22.
Schedule 4 [Terms of the statutory tenancy.]
5.40 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 42, line 5, at end insert—
("(4) It shall be a condition of the statutory tenancy that the tenant shall keep the interior of the dwelling-house in good decorative repair, and to deliver up the same at the end of the tenancy.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, unlike the Amendments which have been designed to try to deal with the terrible problems we foresee when a man is stuck in a house which is needed for agriculture and the local authority will not house him, this Amendment will not cause any agonising problems because it is very simple. It is designed to deal with what appears to be a simple omission from Schedule 4. The Schedule sets out the terms of the statutory tenancy that will arise when a man who loses his job lives in a farm cottage and becomes a statutory tenant. This Schedule sets out the terms of that statutory tenancy. A similar Amendment was moved in Committee because it was felt that Schedule 4 did not make clear the statutory obligations on the tenant to keep the interior of his house in good
704
condition. Paragraph 6 of the Schedule sets out quite clearly the landlord's obligations as regards repair. Then in paragraph 7 are set out the tenant's obligations, but they contain no reference whatever to repairs.
At Committee stage, the noble Baroness pointed out that an implied obligation under a previous licence to use the premises in a tenant-like manner would be carried forward into the terms of the statutory tenancy, and that such an obligation was written into Schedule 4 in paragraph 4(2); and, indeed, that is so. But the terms of any normal tenancy agreement require a tenant to do a little more than use the premises in a tenant-like manner. That phrase has been held to mean that the tenant should refrain from damaging the property and if he damages the property, wilfully or negligently, then he should make good the damage: otherwise, he should do no more than merely, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning;
"… take proper care of the place; turn off the water when he goes away; clean the chimneys: mend the electric fuses, unblock the sink, and so on."
However, that is not really sufficient. There is clearly a gap between this minimum obligation and the landlord's repair obligations, which are set out in paragraph 6 of the Schedule.
Those obligations are set out also in Section 32 of the Housing Act 1961, and that section lays upon the landlord the major share of repair liability. But that share does not include the liability of the landlord to keep the house in reasonable decorative repair. Neither does a covenant to keep the house in a tenant-like manner lay an obligation upon the tenant to carry out decorative repairs. So there is a gap. Decorative repairs are normally a tenant's obligation in any contract of tenancy, and I feel that Schedule 4 should be altered so as to set out clearly therein the normal tenant's obligation to carry out decorative repairs. That is what this Amendment seeks to do. It imposes no greater liability upon a statutory tenant than he would have under a statutory tenancy with for instance, a local authority over a council house. The extent of his repair obligation is clearly limited in the Bill by reference to the Housing Act 1961, but he would—and I think it is perfectly clear and reasonable—have to do

705
a bit more than merely to use the house in a tenant-like manner. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, since we discussed the Amendment on this subject which was moved in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, I have written to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and his colleagues, and I gather that it has been seen by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. The letter explained more fully the meaning to be attached to the obligation in paragraph 4 of Schedule 4 to use the premises in a tenant-like manner. As the noble Lord has been over the ground and obviously understands this very well indeed, I do not want to read out in full the relevant extract from the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, since that has already been put on record in Committee proceedings in another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Middleton, however, did not seem to think it went far enough; but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, indicated that in addition to doing the little jobs a reasonable tenant would do, he should repair any damage done by himself or his family. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, went on to say:
"… apart from such things, if the house falls into disrepair through fair wear and tear or lapse of time or for any reason not caused by him, then the tenant is not liable to repair it."
What I have just quoted represents the Government's view on this matter, and I would say to the noble Lord that his Amendment goes further than the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and certainly further than we would want to go. It pinpoints the difference between our views and those of the movers of this Amendment.
The Amendment requires the statutory tenant to keep the interior of the house in good decorative repair. That is unacceptable for two reasons. First, it puts an obligation on the tenant, irrespective of the decorative condition in which he finds the property. If the decorations were defective when he moved in, he would have to renew them even if the landlord had covenanted to do so, because that is what is contained in the Amendment. Secondly, the Amendment makes the tenant liable to make good fair wear and tear. That certainly goes beyond the judgment of the noble and learned Lord,
706
Lord Denning. It also goes beyond the normal, reasonable obligations of a tenant unless there is a specific agreement—and I think this is the important point—between the landlord and the tenant to that effect. That is then an entirely different case. Whatever the agreement under a protected occupancy, paragraph12, as I am sure the noble Lord is well aware, allows for such an agreement to be made under a statutory tenancy arising from the Bill.
I am rather surprised that noble Lords opposite should have come back to this point and that they are also going rather further than their colleagues in another place. I had hoped that the letter I sent to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and his colleagues would have satisfied them on this point. I do not intend to read the letter, in order to save time, but I would hope they would reconsider the arguments and decide not press this Amendment.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I ask who, under the statutory tenancy, is going to do the decorations?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if there is an agreement between landlord and tenant, the agreement will be valid; but what we are objecting to is that this places a blanket-type obligation on the statutory tenant to keep the interior of the dwelling house in good decorative repair. It does not indicate the state of repair it should be in when the tenant takes over. It also does not take note—which I think the noble Lord, Lord Denning, quite rightly made a point in his judgment—of what is normal wear and tear. It leaves far too great an obligation on the tenant and goes beyond any normal obligation unless—and I repeat—there is a special arrangement or agreement made for which provision is allowed in Schedule 4, paragraph 12, between the landlord and the tenant.
5.51 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we seem to have come up against a little more robust resistance. There is nothing sinister in this Amendment. All we are trying to do is to spell out that if a person has a statutory right to remain in a house he should keep the place in proper

707
decorative repair and not make it like a slum. Most people would not do so. The argument of the noble Baroness is, "That is fine: tenant-like repair is defined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning". Of course, when you put something in a Statute you go by what the statute says, and not every person, I venture to suggest, not every solicitor, certainly not every farm worker, will know what the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was. Certainly I did not until I got the letter from the noble Baroness. To suggest that it would be wrong to say that it shall be a condition of the tenancy that the tenant shall keep the interior of the dwelling house in good decorative repair seems to me to be unduly touchy. I should not have thought there was anything wrong in putting this in. I thought this might have been a nice Amendment which the noble Baroness could willingly have accepted. I am sorry that she has not done so.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness has not accepted it. There is a difference between a repairing liability on a tenant farmer and the repairing liability on a statutory tenant. The normal tenancy agreement makes it a duty on the tenant farmer "to put, keep and maintain in good tenantable repair the premises"; that is, the house and the cottages. If lie has to put it into good tenantable repair and deliver up the same at the end of the tenancy, I can see no harm in this Amendment. It is only putting the obligation on to the statutory tenant in very much the same way as the obligation is on the tenant farmer at the moment. It is common practice that anything not included in paragraph 32 of the 1961 Housing Act is automatically classified as the tenant's responsibility, making due allowance for fair wear and tear, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said. I therefore cannot see anything sinister about this Amendment. I think from everybody's point of view it would be considerably easier to implement in practice.
Lord BURNHAM: My Lords, if one goes outside agriculture, one finds that every fair rent certificate for a reputable tenancy—all those I have seen—states:
708
"landlord responsible for the main walls and roof, tenant responsible for interior decoration".
In the case of an agricultural licensee, as he is at present, there probably are no written conditions under which he has the house. Such is the relationship between the farmer and his worker that it has never been thought necessary. It is therefore a question of what is an implied condition of the tenancy, which I think my noble friend's Amendment is designed to clear up.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, may I answer two points made by the noble Baroness? On the question of putting an obligation on the tenant irrespective of the decorative state although I am not a lawyer I think there is plenty of case law that has established that no undue onerous duties to repair decorations should be put on a tenant if the place is in a very bad order or the roof leaks because of the landlord's fault. I think tenants are protected in that event. As to making good fair wear and tear, why should the tenant not do this? Every other tenant has to make good for his own comfort as well as for the state of the property.
I think Schedule 4 as it stands is clearly deficient, because although it covers most sorts of repairs it does not cover the kind of repairs, particularly decorative repairs, which are almost invariably incorporated in any tenancy agreement. I do not see why a statutory tenant who under this Bill becomes entitled to the protected tenancy of a farm cottage should be in a privileged position with regard to repairs compared with any other tenant. I am firmly convinced that this Schedule is deficient in that respect. However, although we think it is wrong, it is not a key point which we wish to make in this Bill. I am not going to press the Amendment. Clearly, if it remains in the Bill the sooner anyone comes to a classic agreement with his tenant rather than relying on the Bill he will be very well advised. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 43, line 31, leave out from ("means") to ("in") in line 32.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with this Amendment I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 30 and 38. This last Amendment inserts in Clause 20 a definition of rental period to cover the two cases in Clause 12 and Schedule 4 where this term arises. If it is for the convenience of the House I will move Amendment No. 29 and formally move Amendments Nos. 30 and 38 when we come to them. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 43, line 34, leave out ("(as so defined)")
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 31 and 32:
Page 43, line 41, leave out ("at any time")
Page 43, line 42, at end insert—
("() An agreement under this paragraph may be made at any time, including a time before the beginning of the statutory tenancy.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will move Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 together. These are minor Amendments and make it clear that a landlord and tenant agreement to vary in writing the terms of the statutory tenancy can be reached at any time, including a time before the statutory tenancy begins. This makes it clearer and more precise. I beg to move.
Clause 13 [Provisional rents]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 12, line 32, after ("and") insert ("set out the landlord's calculation of that amount.
() The notice shall also specify")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I move Amendment No. 33 and will speak to Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 at the same time. Amendment No. 33 provides that a landlord seeking to recover a provisional rent should in serving a notice of increase, set out how he has calculated the amount of rent due. This will help the tenant to check that the notice quotes the correct figures. Amendments Nos. 35 and 37 are drafting corrections. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 13, line 19, leave out ("1·5") and insert ("1·75")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to provide a modicum of justice for the farmer who finds himself having to house someone who is now working for somebody else, while in no way producing an unfair result for the tenant during the interim period between the employee leaving his employ and the time when the fair rent is finally agreed—which may of course, be some time after the fair rent is first proposed, if it goes to appeal. It would appear that my objectives are exactly the same as those of the Government, because the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said in Committee on 27th October at column 503:
"… we have been concerned to achieve two aims. First, so far as possible the farmer should not be appreciably out of pocket during the interim period between the date when the statutory tenancy arises and the date from which he is able to charge a fair rent".—[Official Report.]
The second aim, if I may paraphrase it, is that a tenant should not find himself paying any more during the provisional period than he will ultimately pay after the fair rent is agreed.
Unfortunately, the noble Baroness went on to reject an Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, which would have gone a long way to achieving these aims, the Amendment in Question being to apply a figure of twice the rateable value as a provisional rent, rather than 1.5 times the rateable value: on the basis, I would suggest, of outdated statistics, as I hope to demonstrate to your Lordships in a moment. I still feel that the noble Earl's Amendment was the right one and indeed if anything, a multiple of two was a little on the low side. However, in a spirit of compromise—perhaps appropriate to someone speaking, geographically, between the two Front Benches—I have split the difference so as to arrive at a multiple of 1.75 times the rateable value.
Now to the arithmetic. It has always been generally acknowledged that the gross value is equivalent to the minimum rentable value of any given property. The gross value which is the eqivalent of a house with a rateable value of £80 (that being the average for agricultural cottages, as the noble Baroness pointed out in

711
Committee) was £127 in 1973. Adding back the 10 per cent. which is automatically deducted for agricultural use, gives a minimum 1973 gross value—in other words, equivalent to the rentable value—for a house no longer in agricultural use of £141. This is already in excess of the £140 per annum which would result from my multiple of 1.75.
But this is not the end of the story, because we are all aware that the cost of living has risen by between 65 and 66 per cent. since 1973. Few of us are lucky enough to keep pace with inflation, and landlords of fair-rented accommodation are no exception. However, the noble Baroness may not be aware that fair rents outside Greater London have risen by 43 per cent. since 1973, so that if one uplifts the 1973 gross value of £141 by 43 per cent. it produces a current gross value—were it possible to revalue at this moment—of £202.
How does this figure of £202 compare with the fair rents that are being agreed at the moment? My fairly exhaustive inquiries have established that it is almost unheard of for a farm cottage, with all facilities, to be assigned a fair rent of less than £200; and that figure would apply to a fairly small farm cottage with perhaps two bedrooms, located quite a long way from the nearest town. From my personal experience with three former farm cottages where a fair rent has been agreed, I can testify that the fair rents in question were £210, £218 and £240 respectively. That is for attractive stone-built cottages, but with rooms smaller than those normally found in council houses, and with the bathrooms downstairs for reasons of space.
We must not forget the maintenance cost in which the farmer will be involved. On a house of this size, the annual insurance is likely to be about £19; the annual cost of external painting, averaged over seven years, provided he is lucky enough to live in a pollution-free part of the country, £21, and other maintenance and repair expenditure about £40, giving a total of £80. This is bad enough when deducted from a gross income of £200, but when deducted from £120 which is what the Government's figures would produce, it results in a net income of no more than £40. We must surely not forget that if a farmer has to build a new house for
712
the employee who is coming in to replace the man who has left, he is likely to have to spend between £14,000 and £15,000, excluding the cost of the land.
If he is lucky enough to be able to borrow from the bank at 15 per cent., which is highly unlikely, he will be faced with annual outgoings of interest on the loan of between £2,100 and £2,250. The only thing to balance against this is a net income of £40 from the house which is let at the interim rent. It is quite true that my Amendment would increase the net income to only £60, but every little counts. The Government's figures would produce a provisional rent of between 50 and 60 per cent. of the fair rent finally arrived at. If my Amendment is accepted, as I hope it will be, this would raise it, modestly, to between 57 and 70 per cent. My Lords, I beg to move.
6.7 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, very briefly, I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. When we dealt with this point in Committee, the Government produced some figures which showed that there would be a considerable number of reductions when the fair rent came to be fixed; and, for the sake of charity, let us assume that the Government's figures are right, and that they have not been upstaged by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. But if the figure is 1·75, as opposed to 1·5, the dangers which they foresaw when they opposed my original Amendment in Committee would probably not arise, and there would not be what we all want to avoid, which is a harsh jump between the provisional rent and the fair rent.
Lord CLITHEROE: My Lords, I hope that the Government will pay attention to this Amendment, and will read carefully the report of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said. I believe that a fairly strong case has been made out.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I, too, should like to support this Amendment. This state of affairs has come about because agricultural cottages have always been very underrated in value, and that for the very good reason, as all noble Lords know, that when one has an agricultural worker one does not charge him any rent. Even

713
if one did, the figure is laid down in regulations and depends upon the accommodation, whether or not there is a bathroom and so on. Even if one charged rent—and, so far as I know, nobody does—it would be only about £1 a week at the most. I do not know whether the figure of 1·75 is correct, because I have not studied the matter sufficiently, but I believe that the noble Lord has a good point here.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I do not expect I am alone in finding some difficulty in making comparisons between the various, sometimes conjectural, calculations which were mentioned at a previous stage. On that occasion, however, there seemed to be room for manoeuvre on the part of the Government towards the position suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I apologise to the House for the fact that I was not in my place when the noble Lord, Lord Monson, rose to move the Amendment. I was on the telephone at the time, but I came here as fast as I could because I wish to support the noble Lord's Amendment.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have listened carefully to everything that all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, have said and I had the opportunity to discuss it with him yesterday. This is a difficult, grey area—it is not a black and white one—to work out. I described the analysis upon which the figure of 1·5 is based in some detail in Committee and also in a letter to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, which I sent on 8th November and which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has now seen.
I am not claiming that the analysis that we have made provides anything more than a rough and ready guide to the likely relationship between provisional and registered rents. I agree that because of the rating relief given to agricultural dwelling-houses the statistics we have analysed are not directly comparable with figures we can expect for Bill registrations, but the effect of taking rating relief into account is not likely to be particularly significant. The Opposition spokesman on housing in another place quoted in Committee a figure of 10 per cent. as being a standard deduction which
714
many valuation officers apply in valuing agricultural dwelling-houses, and this concurs with my understanding of the matter.
I quite appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, reaches a different conclusion. Without further examination I will refrain from offering a definitive view of the figures quoted by the noble Lord both in his letter to me yesterday and now in debate this afternoon. However, my initial reaction is that I could have no quarrel with them because of the grey area of "fuzz" surrounding all this. Nor do the figures seem to be incompatible with the analysis that we have made. However, the difference which exists between the noble Lord and myself stems from the fact that we do not start from the same premise.
Perhaps I may outline why, despite both reading and listening to the arguments put forward in Committee, in the letters I have received from noble Lords and now by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and the noble Lords who support him, we prefer to retain the figure of 1·5. First, the concept of a provisional rent is quite a deliberate departure from the analogy of the Rent Act. If we followed the Rent Act model during the initial period of a statutory tenancy, the rent payable would be the same as under the preceding contract. In other words, and as most noble Lords have pointed out, there would be nothing at all in it. Instead, however, we introduced the concept of a provisional rent in order to help the farmer.
Secondly, in providing this help we deliberately aimed at bridging the transition for tenants between a nil or low rent to a full, fair rent. Our policy has been to keep to a minimum the number of tenants who will find themselves paying a higher provisional rent than a registered rent. I remember that in Committee the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, showed his appreciation of that point, but it does not entirely mean that we are all agreed upon where we start from. The noble Lord starts from the basis that provisional rent levels in general should be closer to those of the eventual fair rents. It amounts to this. We have preferred to take fuller account than does the noble Lord of the need to bridge the increase in rent for the tenant, especially since we are

715
departing, so far as the tenant is concerned, from the Rent Act precedent.
I concede that in practice the difference between us may not be all that great. With a prescribed multiple of 1·5, some 5 per cent. of statutory tenants under the Bill could find that the provisional rent they had to pay turned out to be higher than the registered rent. Setting the prescribed multiple at 1·75, which is the purpose of the Amendment, may mean that this proportion could rise to around 15 per cent. This is a larger proportion than we should like to see put at risk in this way. I am not satisfied that any of us have been able to find enough precise figures, nor am I satisfied that we have enough precise experience to go on.
Having said that, I would not pretend for one moment that 1·5 is necessarily a definitive answer. As I have said, the analysis that we have made is, given the lack of data, rough and ready. Once the Bill comes into force we shall see to it that the relationship between registered rents and rateable value is monitored—this is absolutely essential—so that we have evidence on which to proceed. If necessary, the Secretary of State can adjust the prescribed multiple which is set out in the Bill. For the future, we are quite open-minded on the issue, although for the present, for the reasons I have given—which is a difference of emphasis and starting point rather than one of statistics—we prefer to retain the 1·5 figure. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
6.16 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her full explanation, but I am afraid that I am not at all happy with it. The noble Baroness mentioned the precedent of the Rent Act and implied that the Government are being very generous to farmers. But farmers are the only group of employers who are having their tied cottages taken away from them and let at what is still going to be a derisory rent under the fair rent system. Nobody who knows anything about property or rental values can deny that. That alone seems to be a case which should indicate a certain amount of generosity.
716
I cannot accept that except in freak cases my formula will produce any provisional rents that are higher than the ultimate fair rents. In fact, I do not believe that the noble Earl's multiple of two would have done so. I am absolutely certain about my figures. As the noble Baroness rightly said both today and in Committee, the Secretary of State has the power to vary the multiple. Politically it is much easier for a Secretary of State to reduce the multiple if it is too high—this goes for both a Conservative Secretary of State and a Labour one—than to raise it if it is too low. I am sure that when noble Lords and, indeed—
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on that point, because it is a political one. I agree with the noble Lord that if a Labour Government put in a high multiple it would be easier for a Conservative Government to lower it. One cannot take away the political point; it depends upon which way you are looking at it and which Government have to make the first move. We are saying that we should prefer to start on what I agree may be the low side and, if necessary, go up rather than do what the noble Lord is putting forward—and it is a perfectly reasonable proposition —which is to start on the high side and come down. This is where we part company. It is not just a statistical point. It depends upon one's approach to the whole matter.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I take the point, but I maintain that it is politically more acceptable for any Secretary of State to reduce rather than to raise a figure. Then it appears that he is taking the side of the popular tenant against the unpopular landlord. We all know the reality of this, unfair though it may be. If the noble Baroness and her Department and, indeed, honourable Members in another place study Hansard tomorrow and the figures I have given—because I have produced new ones which have not yet been discussed —I hope they will see that my case is rather better founded than the noble Baroness suggests. I think that the other place ought to be given an opportunity to look at the new multiple. If they reject it, well and good. I feel that I must test the opinion—
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble Lord sits down, I would press him not to divide the House again because for one thing I cannot stand the sound of those Division Bells any more after being up all night, and in any case I do not think he will carry the House with him. The noble Baroness has given a very satisfactory answer so far as I am concerned, as somebody who moved the Amendment at the Committee stage.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I rather wonder whether we cannot do something about this. There ought to be a bit of "give" somewhere. Certainly the noble Baroness said that 1·75 is not definitive. She said that twice the rateable value is too much because that meant that 30 per cent. of the people would be over that limit. I really would have thought that it is not a major point. The noble Baroness has said that 2 is unacceptable and she wants to stick to 1·5, and there has been substantial argument for 1·75. I would not have thought it was something we wanted to go to Division over, although if the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wants to do so, that is up to him. I should have thought this was a point on which the Government could have given just a little. I think I am right in saying that the noble Baroness said that if this Amendment were accepted 15 per cent. of the people in the survey might be paying more than the registered rent. Of course that equally means that 85 per cent. would be
paying less—and what is the figure that has been talked about? I think it is 20p a week, or something like that.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it does not necessarily mean that. It could mean that part of the 85 per cent. will be paying less but a greater number of them may be paying exactly the right amount.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I am very sorry about this because the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is always very reasonable. All I am seeking to do is to give another place a chance to study the figures when they read them in Hansard and to check them, perhaps, if they do not trust my word. Some of the figures have not been previously available. Of course I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said but I, too, was up most of last night. The Conservative Benches have had a good run and I think just now and again the Cross-Benches must be allowed to "have a go". All I am trying to do is to see that the dice are loaded a little less against the farmer, in order to redress the balance slightly, and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
6.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 34) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 39; Not-Contents, 46.

CONTENTS

Boothby, L.

Gray, L.

Northchurch, B.

Bradford, E.

Greenway, L.

Northesk, E.

Burnham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harvington, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Cobham, V.

Hives, L.

Slim, V.

Coleraine, L.

Ilchester, E.

Somers, L. [Teller.]

Congleton, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lloyd, L.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mancroft, L.

Teviot, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tranmire, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ely, Bp.

Monson, L. [Teller.]

Wise, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mottistone, L.

Gisborough, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pannell, L.

Aylestone, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Bacon, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peddie, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Rhodes, L.

Brimelow, L.

Jacobson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Snow, L.

Castle, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stone, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Mais, L.

Willis, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Murray of Newhaven, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.31 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 13, line 41, leave out ("landlord's estimate of that amount") and insert ("amount of the rent based on the landlord's estimate of that value")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 35, which is consequential on Amendment No. 33.
Clause 14—[Application for registration of rent.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 14, line 14, after ("45") insert ("47(3)")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment to put beyond doubt that Section 47(3) of the Rent Act 1968 is not to apply. I beg to move.
Clause 17—[Notices of increase.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 16, line 26, leave out from third ("the") to ("rateable") in line 27 and insert ("amount of the rent based on the landlord's estimate of the")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 37, which is consequential on Amendment No. 33.
Clause 20—[Interpretation of Part II.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 17, line 19, at end insert ("'rental period means a period in respect of which a payment of rent, or in the case of a licence the equivalent of rent, falls to be made")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 38. I have already spoken to this Amendment when speaking to earlier Amendments.
Clause 24—[Tenant sharing accommodation with persons other than landlord.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 38A, 38B and 38C:
Page 19, line 8, at end insert ("then, subject to subsection (1A) below")
Page 19, line 11, leave out ("the following provisions of this section") and insert ("subsections (2) to (7) below")
Page 19, line 12, at end insert—
("(1A) Subsection (1) above shall not apply in relation to accommodation which would, apart from this subsection, be deemed to be a dwelling-house subject to a protected occupancy if—

(a) the accommodation consists of only one room, and

(b)at the time when the tenancy was granted, not less than three other rooms in the same building were occupied as residential accommodation by separate occupiers, or were available for such occupation, on such terms as are mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above.")

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 38A, 38B and 38C, which have already been spoken to with the first batch of Amendments.
Clause 27—[Jurisdiction and procedure.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 21, line 17, leave out ("or II of this Act") and insert ("of this Act, or Part II of this Act except Part II of Schedule 3").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, I wish to speak to Amendment No. 40 as well. Under the Rent Act 1968, generally a landlord may seek to recover possession under one of the mandatory grounds in either the county court or the High Court, and may in either case claim costs. Under the Bill as it stands, he cannot make such a claim where he has undertaken proceedings in the High Court. This was never intended, and the Amendment ensures that he can make such a claim. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 21, line 20, leave out ("or II of this Act") and insert ("of this Act, or Part II of this Act except Part II of Schedule 3").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
Clause 28—[interpretation of Part III.]
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 41:
Leave out Clause 28.
The noble Baroness said:My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
Clause 29—[Applications to housing authority concerned.]
Lord GISBOROUGH Lord GISBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 22, line 11, at end insert ("or a person who is retiring after not less than three years' service with the applicant").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to ensure that landowners and farmers are enabled to look after their retired workers, as in many cases they have done in the past. Perhaps the easiest way to think of this is to visualise two groups of houses, one of
722
which is a house in which it is vital to have a worker such as, for example, the person looking after the fish farm, or whatever it may be, on the site; and another house or group of houses, set away and therefore not of vital importance as to who lives there. Both these houses will belong to the same farmer. The farmer may have one resident worker in the important house, a worker who perhaps decides to become a lorry driver. But that house is needed, and so the farmer goes to the ADHAC and applies to have the lorry driver removed. A new worker will then move into house A, and almost certainly the farmer will have to house the lorry driver in house B. Sooner or later, the worker looking after the equipment and living in house A will retire. In turn, his house will be needed by a new worker. But instead of having the category B house in which to put the retired worker, the house will be occupied by the lorry driver, and so the retired worker will have to go to the council.
In many a country area such workers will be vitally associated with the village. They will be members of the village darts team. They will be associated with the countryside, and it seems most unreasonable, after possibly a lifetime's service with a farm in a particular part of the countryside, that these workers should have to leave that area in which the farmer would like to put them for their retirement because of the fact that a lorry driver is occupying the house intended for retirement. I do not think it is possible for the lorry driver to be removed. As the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said on Committee, it is a question of whether there is an agricultural need. Of course there is no agricultural need for the retired man to be housed in one of the tied houses. Therefore it will be very difficult, and probably impossible, to make room for him.
I think it is essential that farmers and landowners should be enabled to look after their retired workers who often have given long and faithful service. On occasions, it is possible to hold a house empty perhaps for a year, and no doubt the ADHAC will take this into account if someone were about to retire. But often the retirement may take place 10 years' hence, and it is unlikely that the ADHAC would agree that a house should remain empty for that length of time in

723
anticipation of retirement. At the moment, there are hundreds of retired workers in tied cottages. This is proved by the figures which have been put forward in this House. In the future, many of these houses will be filled with what one might describe as the lorry drivers.
The councils will therefore be responsible for housing the retired people, and the question is: where will they do so? In my own district there was a case only recently where a farm worker retired and the only place that the council could find for him was down in the very unattractive area where there were council houses free, miles away from the country where he wanted to live. Councils vary in sympathy. There are some agriculturally minded councils and there are many that are not agriculturally minded and who have less sympathy. I think this is going to end up with a great deal of hardship for the farm worker who has served well and finds himself shot out into the back of beyond.
I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will be able to accept this Amendment, or at least accept the principle so that an Amendment can be put down at another stage; or, failing that, make it quite clear that the DOE circular to the local authorities will take in this question of precedence and make it quite clear that the retired worker has precedence over the lorry driver. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, as I moved this Amendment at Committee stage, perhaps I may have the pleasure of supporting my noble friend Lord Gisborough, who has moved a parallel but slightly altered Amendment at this stage with almost exactly the same intention. At Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Peart, in his reply, cast grave doubts on whether this was going to be possible. I do not say that he was unsympathetic, but he did cast very considerable doubts on the possibility. As my noble friend said, he mentioned the principal objection; that is, the total absence, so far as the noble Lord was concerned, of agricultural need.
I think my noble friend has a real problem here and a real point in his Amendment. I think I ought to start with the survey, both from the Consulta-
724
tive Document and also as shown up by the Arthur Rank Study. Of course, doubt has since been cast on some of the figures, but all the figures showed one principal finding, that the agricultural industry had a very fine record of retirement for their agricultural workers. It was somewhere between 18 and 20 per cent. That was very a high figure. My noble friend Lord Gisborough has drawn attention to the fact that there are quite a substantial number of empty cottages, or there could be a substantial number of empty cottages in the future. There does seem to be very little elbow room, however.
One possibility is the use of the North Wiltshire scheme, but it has been stressed in this House before now that not all local authorities are willing to undertake the North Wiltshire scheme, although this scheme is favoured by the Department of the Environment and the noble Baroness has given currency to the validity of this scheme in particular cases. However, there are considerable problems here. My noble friend Lord Gisborough identified one straight away. The date of retirement may be perhaps 10 or more years away, and it may be difficult for a local authority to say it is a short term let if they are obliged to let in fact for a very much longer period than on a year to year basis. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, may have some new advice to give, because I am sure that he will recognise that there is a problem for the industry and that it goes very wide. In a large number of cases farmers will wish to make provision for their retired workers.
My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton referred to this, I thought, in particularly felicitous phrases in his remarks at col. 560 on Committee on 27th October. I hope the Government can address themselves to this situation, which in a way is somewhat parallel to Amendment No. 20. I think my noble friend Lady Elliot laid stress on the need for a half-way house. The interface between two irreconcilable positions is something we find all too easily in legislation, but there may be a half-way house that we can find here. I hope that perhaps my noble friends in advancing their arguments may be able to find it.
Lord PEART: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough,

725
and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, have put their case in a sensible way, but I think they both realise that there are difficulties here. This is not an easy matter. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, said that there were considerable problems facing us, and he talked later about a half-way house. I say that to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, as well. I understand and I recognise the arguments they have put forward and the spirit in which they have put them forward. I understand the thought which lies behind this Amendment, which after all, will affect, I agree, the fabric of a rural community revolving around a village where agricultural workers live and work and may want to continue to live in retirement.
I understand the lorry driver argument which has been mentioned. But there is a real problem here. I appreciate the motivation. The agricultural community is justly proud of the effort which it makes on behalf of its retired workers. Mention has been made of a report. Some 20,000 retired workers or their widows are at present housed in farm cottages. This figure alone is a testimony to the concern which is not only felt but translated into practice in the farming world. So I do understand the arguments. I hope noble Lords opposite will not think that I am being negative when I say this. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, have suggested changes to the Bill.
I of course take the point that a farmer, or any other employer for that matter, would prefer, if the choice were put to him in such terms, to accommodate a retired worker in a house occupied by an ex-employee with whom relations might perhaps be strained. I understand this argument. But the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord does not, I am afraid, allow for the choice to be put in quite this way, since there are other factors to be taken account of. One of these factors, and a fundamental one, if the Bill is to work as we intend, is that the applicant has to show that re-housing is required on grounds of agricultural need. This is my worry. I will be quite frank with the noble Lords.
I perfectly well understand that, as a matter of policy as well as of good will, a farmer might choose to provide for his
726
former employees as best he can, and the Bill actually encourages him to do this by ensuring that he looks to his own accommodation before asking the local authority to re-house a former worker. This, as noble Lords know, is provided for in Clause 29(1)(b). What the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, has in mind cannot be achieved without breaching a fundamental principle of the Bill. I have looked very carefully at this matter; indeed he approached me about it, quite rightly. In the end I am afraid I have come to that conclusion. I am sympathetic and I understand this problem, but we would be breaching a fundamental principle, that there has to be agricultural need before the re-housing obligation can arise.
I should like also to make one other point to the noble Lords. The Amendment as drafted covers workers who are to retire and who are not housed on the farm. If they are not housed on the farm they must be housed somewhere else; possibly in houses they own themselves or in council houses, or indeed in privately rented houses. So it really would not be reasonable to lay down in Statute that a local authority must provide housing for someone at public expense so that someone else, already adequately housed, should be able to live in accommodation owned by his ex-employer.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, that may be the result of the Amendment, but it is certainly not the intention.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I know the intentions of the noble Lord. All I am saying is that I think the Amendment, if it was passed, would have the effect that I am trying to explain. This is one of the difficulties. I was hoping to say—and should have loved to say to the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, who made his case clearly and eloquently—that he had convinced me. But I feel that I would be breaching what is a main principle behind the Bill itself.
I sympathise with the thinking that lies behind this Amendment, which I agree reflects admirably a notably attractive facet of agricultural life, and rural life. Although I cannot go along with what the Amendment would actually achieve, I hope that my comments will be sufficient to persuade noble Lords not to press their Amendment. I could not

727
promise looking at it again. I know that sometimes it is an easy get-out for a Minister to say that he will look at it, and then probably come to another decision. But there are arguments about this, and there will inevitably be circulars emanating not from my old agricultural Ministry but from the Department of the Environment, and I could not give a specific assurance. I understand the motivation behind the Amendment, but I ask noble Lords not to press it.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it is not proved that there are a greatly increased number of empty cottages on most farms now owing to farmers having to cut down the numbers of their workers owing to costs?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not get that impression. Indeed, the argument we have had on this Bill is that one of the great problems is to get extra accommodation. The noble Lord cannot have it both ways. There is no question of empty farmhouses all over the countryside. I do not see that. I certainly do not see it in Cumbria. If other noble Lords have another experience, I should he rather surprised.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's reply and the difficulty in which he has found himself. The trouble is that the Government are always bound to fall back on the rigidity of having to stick to the principle of the Bill. When one sticks permanently to the principle of the Bill, it throws up anomalies such as this and throws up to a certain degree some form of almost inhumanity, and I think that that is a pity. We understand that the noble Lord realises the problem, but one only wished that it was possible to be slightly more flexible in order to accommodate some other people such as those my noble friend Lord Gisborough has mentioned, who really ought to be looked after and accommodated and not prejudiced because of sticking to the principle of the Bill.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the principle is important. After all, there must be principles behind the Bill. One is not being dogmatic. What is it—"Man's
728
inhumanity to man?" I do not know whether the noble Earl has ever read that radical book, but I agree that we should not be inhuman. Of course not. But it is a difficult problem here because we have to stress the importance of agricultural need. After all, that is what the Bill is about. I hope it will work sensibly. Let us see. I am a pragmatist.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for the care which he has taken to answer this question, and I am naturally sorry that he cannot be more helpful still and accept it. It does not affect the farmer at all or the landowner directly, where his retired man goes. It is entirely a matter affecting the retired worker, and it is he who will suffer—and I think suffer hardship, particularly in many rural areas—and I am sorry about this. I suggest also that it will not be very long before the agricultural union will themselves be pressed to do something about it. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to do something in the way of a D of E circular to try to take care of it in that direction. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.56 p.m.
Lord MONK BRETTON Lord MONK BRETTON moved Amendment No.43:
Page 22, line 17, at end insert—
("(1A) An application may be made by the owner of land used for agriculture to the housing authority concerned ("the authority") on the ground that—

(a) vacant possession is or will be needed of a dwellinghouse which is subject to a protected occupancy or a statutory tenancy, or which is let on or subject to a tenancy to which subsection (2) below applies, in the interests of agricultural efficiency, and

(b) not less than two-thirds of the dwellinghouses on land used by the applicant for agriculture are occupied by protected occupiers or statutory tenants or are let subject to tenancies to which subsection (2) below applies, and

(c) the authority ought, in the interests of efficient agriculture to provide the suitable alternative accommodation.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have studied with considerable care everything that was said about Clause 29 at the Committee stage. Clause 29 of course refers to the grounds upon which an application can be made to the local authority to provide a house. We had a

729
previous Amendment which was the one to delete paragraph (b) from subsection(l). That Amendment was withdrawn. I still remain unhappy about this matter long term, and I put down an Amendment of a different sort in order to try to get a bit further with this problem.
The paragraph it was sought to remove says:
"The applicant is unable to provide, by any reasonable means"
a house. I think it was recognised during the Committee discussions that this was pretty tough. It hinged very much upon the word "reasonable". We gathered that it was to be softened somewhat by the kind of instruction the ADHACs would eventually receive. These instructions are not going to be known by everyone. They do not have the force of law. The Bill at the moment states that the ADHACs' function is merely advisory.
I gather from what was said about this problem that there was considerable likelihood that more houses than were at present being used by agricultural workers and retired agricultural workers might well be drawn into the vortex, as it were, by this Bill. Whether more houses or not more houses, it still also remains apparent that there is no great possibility of the burden of the number of houses that agriculture, as an industry, provides being lessened at all as time goes on. It is this factor which worries me, because the results are going to be as follows. There is first this heavy burden on the industry. I am not sure that it is right to place too heavy a burden, and certainly not to increase that burden.
We know that other industries do not carry a burden of this kind. Agriculture has always had to do so for a number of very good reasons, and probably always will. But there is some question as to the extent to which that should go. It has a bearing upon the cost of food and similar matters. I am not sure that it is quite fitting and proper that the matter of the extent of that burden upon agriculture should be decided by the local authorities alone with advice from the ADHACs. So that is the matter of the housing burden.
The other point which worries me particularly is that I fear a collapse in the motivation to maintain or improve the housing on holdings which is not occupied
730
any more by workers on the holdings. Furthermore, I fear greatly that there may be virtually no motivation whatever left to build a house.
The next point I want to mention is that owner-occupiers, particularly the smaller ones, periodically have need to try to raise more capital. It is becoming increasingly difficult for them to do this, and in many cases probably the only course left is to sell with vacant possession an unwanted—that is, unwanted by agriculture—cottage. I suppose that there may be arguments as to whether or not they should have a right to do this. It is their property, and equity capital for agriculture must come from somewhere. This is a matter that must be emphasised greatly. There are appalling difficulties in getting it at all. I cannot emphasise that too much.
Inability to obtain equity capital in this way will probably lead to attempts to borrow too much and there are strict limits to the distance that one can go down that road, particularly at the moment. I think that what will happen is that a considerable number of owner-occupiers will feel that the Bill is not as just as it should be to them in that the local authorities are being enabled to acquire a greater housing reserve at the expense of the industry. This is all fairly unhappy, and I am also reminded that in previous Rent Acts there has been a failure to leave owners with a motivation to maintain, and it would be a great help to avoid a repetition of that mistake. I am sure that in the end it caused considerable waste. It placed an extra burden on local authorities. It was an unhappy situation.
I wonder how we can attempt to put this right. I have put down the Amendment, which is a very tentative affair. The noble Lord may feel that it looks rather fierce, but I do not want him to become antagonistic at once before I have explained it. First, it was rather difficult to get the Amendment drafted and that is why it has taken rather a long time. It has been put down in rather a hurry. I should point out the pressure that there has been at this time on those people who have both legal knowledge and agricultural knowledge. They have had to work extremely hard, and this must be remembered while we are having these long sittings.
Broadly speaking, the Amendment limits the liability of the industry to provide only two-thirds of the agricultural housing need. I am not sure whether that is right, but I hope that the noble Lord and the House will realise that this proportion could readily be varied; and the operative part of the Amendment is paragraph (b). There is the possibility of an alternative wording altogether for paragraph (b). One might say and this is in the vernacular, without all the legal necessities—that the number of dwelling-houses on land used by the applicant for agriculture exceeds the number of wholetime employed adult workers reasonably needed for agricultural purposes. That might be used in paragraph (b) as opposed to the words in my Amendment. One could add to this the words:
"…or exceeds by over X per cent. or under X per cent."
I am not quite sure what the right formula might be, but I am most anxious that there should be discussion about this, because I believe that there should be a limit, even if it is a high one, to the amount of housing which agriculture is committed to providing indefinitely. If there is the possibility occasionally of being able to recover a house on the grounds as suggested, that would restore hope immediately and it might produce a willingness to build; it is much more likely to produce a willingness to maintain. I think that that should explain roughly what I am seeking. I very much hope that the Government will consider this proposal with very great care, because if the Bill is to be at all a success it is very important that we should watch the long term aspects as well. No doubt Amendment No. 20 was a crunch that had to be decided, but this is a long term matter which I feel sure will eventually be of very great importance. I beg to move.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton. I found his doubts about the medium and long-term effects of Clause 29—specifically subsection (1)(b)—very persuasive, and although I cannot pretend to understand his somewhat complex Amendment in its entirety, I hope that the Government will give it very serious attention before the next stage.
Lord PEART: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and to the noble Lord, Lord Monk Bretton, that I take all Amendments seriously. One must, I can assure them. After all, one has to look at the Bill again and read the implications, naturally. But I think the noble Lord gave his case away, because he admitted that his Amendment was a tentative affair. I thought that was a strange way in which to introduce an Amendment and to try to persuade a Government to accept it. There are long-term implications, of course, but he said it was a tentative affair. Then he went on to talk about other matters, which I am not going to deal with, about there being no motivation left to build houses. I do not accept that. That is a personal and subjective judgment which he has, and he will not expect me to reply to it.
I believe that the Amendment is unacceptable. I must say that the basic principle of the Amendment confirms that. The Amendment would mean that in certain circumstances a local authority would be obliged to rehouse a person covered by the Bill even though the applicant could reasonably be expected to provide suitable alternative accommodation himself. During debates in Committee I accepted that there could be cases where it would be unreasonable for a farmer to provide suitable alternative accommodation, even though he had an empty house available. I can remember the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, which I dealt with in Committee, as noble Lords will remember. It is reported in Hansard, columns 565 and 567, of the 27th October. In fact, I wrote to the noble Baroness. She raised the very same point that has been raised tonight; that is, where a farmer wanted to keep an empty cottage available for a worker who was to retire in the foreseeable future. I can only say that I could not accept the proposition that a local authority should be obliged to provide suitable alternative accommodation even though the applicant could reasonably provide it himself. Hence—I am sorry to say this—I must advise that the Amendment be rejected
Lord MONK BRETTON: I do not know whether everyone would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, about this

733
question of motivation over repair. Personally, it continues to worry me, and it would take a great deal to persuade me differently. So far as concerns my moving the Amendment in a tentative fashion, as I said, what I meant was that I did not wish to press it at this stage as it was, but hoped that it would induce discussion. I should, I think, like to return to it, and I would have infinitely preferred to return to it with as much co-operation from the Government Front Bench as might be available—and the more the better.
There is one point that I should have referred to in moving this Amendment, and that is that my Amendment does not mention one other point that I think might well come into the picture and should be discussed. That is, if, on the ground I propose, a farmer applied for a house to be provided by the local authority, this should be done under thoroughly extended notice, by which I mean three years or so, possibly more. That, at least, would get us out of the present period, where it is obvious that if the Bill is to work satisfactorily there has to be as many houses as possible. We are very short of houses, too, and we are not in a very good position to provide more. One would hope that if the matter were put off in that way for a little longer, then perhaps, by then, there would be oil flowing from the North Sea and the Government might have solved their problems. A Government, I hope, will have done so by then. I will not speculate what Government, but I believe we shall eventually get ourselves straight as a country and in a better way. So I would mention this matter of extended notice. That would enable everyone, the local authorities particularly, to plan, and for needs to be assessed and the matter got straight by degrees.
There is one other thing I should like to mention. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, referred to the words "reasonably able to provide". One of the worries I have about the word "reasonable" is that I do not believe that, supposing this were to get into the courts, the phrase, where it is in the Bill at the moment, would be construed as meaning financially. I think it would be construed as meaning physically. I think "reasonably" would mean whether there was in fact a house available. If there was a house available but the
734
problem was the farmer's financial ability, I do not believe that word would cover it. I have received some legal advice to the effect that there is doubt about that, and that is one of my reasons for concern. Having said that, I think I have made the matter clear and, with leave, I should like to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 [Duty of housing authority concerned]:
7.17 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 23, line 7, at end insert—
("(3A) The advice of the committee on the question of agricultural need for the provision of suitable alternative accommodation shall be conclusive.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I moved a similar Amendment in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Peart, was kind enough to say that he sympathised with the spirit of the Amendment, but in resisting it he argued, first—and this was on the suggestion that local authoritie s might question the advice provided by the ADHAC—that local authorities could be expected to behave like reasonable men. He also said that local authorities can be expected to welcome independent advice on agricultural aspects without question. I only wish I shared the noble Lord's optimism on both those points. I am afraid I can think of plenty of examples, both within and outside the range of my own local government experience, where local authorities do not behave like reasonable men and where they ignore independent advice—and agricultural advice, at that.
Secondly, the noble Lord argued that a circular would be sent to local authorities, and the circular would say, in effect, that in practice ADHAC advice can be expected to be authoritative on agricultural matters, and they should not as a general rule want to call it in question. The noble Lord told us that the circular would indicate that if a local authority had any reason to call it in question, then the agricultural wages committee chairman who appointed the ADHAC should be consulted, so that the matter could be further considered. I feel that that procedure is too loose altogether. Local authorities will get a

735
circular. They can, presumably, ignore that perfectly well, if they are so minded. If the circular is worded in the way envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, then it may well be in rather vague terms, and where there is disagreement on ADHAC advice the whole thing is going to be referred to the agricultural wages board chairman. He will presumably consult the ADHAC which considered the question; the regional officers of the Ministry of Agriculture will no doubt be called in; perhaps another ADHAC will be set up for another hearing on the same case; and a matter which may be vitally related to agricultural efficiency and the maintenance of food production may well get bogged down for a considerable time.
Thirdly, the noble Lord argued that a local authority must retain the final responsibility for deciding on the allocation of council housing. That, of course, I accept entirely. It was in no way the intention of that Amendment to provide that ADHACs should take upon themselves, and away from local authorities, any responsibility in housing matters.
Lest there should have been any doubt about this, I withdrew that Amendment in order to try to produce a more acceptable one. The intention of this Amendment is not to take away or diminish the housing responsibility of the local authority. The final responsibility for deciding from the allocation of housing remains with the local authority. What it does provide is that the advice of ADHAC as to what is in the interests of agriculture should be conclusive. That advice may well be turned down by a local authority; but it cannot be the intention of the Government that a recommendation as to the degree and urgency of the need to rehouse made by a committee specifically set up under this Bill can be tossed around and thrown back for endless reconsideration. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, has told us that circulars would be sent telling local authorities that ADHAC advice should be authoritative. How much better to have it spelled out in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am afraid it falls to me to resist the noble Lord's Amendment; but it shows the great unanimity between the Ministry of Agricul-
736
ture, Fisheries and Food, and my own Department. There is no split about this. I appreciate the noble Lord has come back with a different proposition. Leaving subsection (5) intact makes a considerable difference. The intention in the Bill, carefully spelled out in subsection (5), is that the local authority shall take full account of any advice tendered by the Committee. In any legal proceedings relating to the duties imposed on the authority, evidence shall be admissable of the advice so given. That seems to be a very good built-in pointer—although I think that it is firmer than that—to the local authority. I think that we are absolutely at one that the people to give advice on agriculture and need must be the ADHAC.
The only point at issue is whether it should be put into the Bill in what is a fairly rigid way. Do not let us forget, that this is going to be a new set-up, that I ADHAC will give their advice which will be taken by the local authorities. There can be the odd occasion where there may be two ADHACs called together in a region where there are fairly similar cases are put to them and where different answers come out. The local authority may have to make a decision on those on housing grounds where it will be difficult in fact and in law to be able to distinguish entirely the ingredients of agriculture from the housing ingredients.
One must also accept that particularly when setting up something new, the odd mistake can be made and new evidence or facts can come along. I do not think that anyone would want to shut the door firmly when at the beginning of what is a new experience.
I think that the noble Lord with his knowledge of local authorities will agree that there is something substantial to the argument which I am going to put now. What we want to see is a relation between ADHAC and local authority so that as far as possible the available housing resources are best used and that agriculture gets its share as quickly as possible. To do that one wants an atmosphere of cooperation rather than saying at the beginning that something should be conclusive—which is what is meant by the words of the noble Lord's Amendment—in any circumstance and on every occasion. That, as I see it, is the difference between us.

737
There can he a case where the Committee may advise that an incoming worker is needed for a farm and in their judgment the farmer will not be able to obtain the worker's services unless accommodation is provided. This is an agricultural need. At the same time, there may be a demand on perhaps one unit of accommodation—a need for the dairy herd which will come trampling through the Bill shortly—for housing a stock man. It may be that the agricultural needs in those cases may be equal. Then the local authority may be left in the situation of an arbiter. It could be argued then that what they are asked to do is not entirely on housing—although obviously this must be taken into consideration, as must their own homeless et cetera—that they are involved in these particular cases in having to make what is almost a quasi-agricultural decision, having had all the evidence put to them by ADHAC who then say, "This is over to you. So far as we are concerned in these cases there is an equal agricultural need".
The local authority will have to take into account other factors. I think it is difficult to make in practice in this situation such a very stern segregation. For this reason and in order to allow flexibility, I am afraid I am going to resist the noble Lord's Amendment.
If one finds as the scheme gets under way very real problems arising between the giving of ADHAC advice and its reception by the local authority, and that there is a need for tighter wording I think that should be considered. To do so at this point would be a mistake. Certainly the Government feel this, from the point of view of the two Departments concerned in this Bill. I hope the noble Lord, although he has put it twice, will see fit to withdraw the Amendment.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: My Lords, one of the things I dislike is advisory committees. I find in this present time when the farmers are busy and the farm-workers are busy they must go on this committee; yet the local authority can say that they do not take this advice or that they query it. I am concerned about the composition of these committees. Therefore I support my noble friend's Amendment. I think it will encourage the proper people to serve on those committees.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am grateful for the reply by the noble Baroness, but I am not really happy about it. She says it is absolutely essential—and I agree—to get an atmosphere of co-operation between the ADHACs and the housing authorities: but I do not think you will get much encouragement of co-operation with the local authorities if they disagree with the agricultural advice—and I think it is going to be agricultural advice mainly—and they toss it back. This will not encourage co-operation.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there is another side to this. To the local authority that is besieged by housing demands and is anxious because of the Bill and the needs of agriculture to give priority in certain areas, it will be an advantage for it to be able to say: "This is the advice given by ADHAC which was set up for this purpose". As the noble Lord knows, when a family in an area where there is a long housing list gets a house, others feel badly about it and that it should have been their turn. A local authority will want to lean on the agricultural need in these cases. The ADHAC will be willing to take advice. The cases I gave will be pretty rare, but I was saying that we had to leave the door open because of that.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I still think that it will be pointless to create advisory committees for a specific job, and every time they do that job the housing authority is going to be able to say that they have not done it properly. This can happen. An assessment of agricultural problems has been made—not housing problems but specifically agricultural problems—arising out of an occupier staying fast in a key worker's house. This is after the case has already been examined in minute detail by the advisory committee. What the noble Baroness is saying is that the argument seems to turn upon whether advice in a circular is as effective as a section in an Act. I do not believe it is. I do not intend to press the Amendment, because it is sufficient to draw the attention of the Government to the necessity that proper emphasis should be laid on the role of the ADHAC and the authoritativeness of their findings. This should be incorporated in all Government instructions. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.32 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 23, line 19, leave out from ("dwelling-house") to ("are") in line 21 and insert ("within three months of their receiving the application or, if an application is made for the services of a committee under section 31 of this Act, within two months of their receiving the committee's advice.
(6A) The notification shall state—
(a) if the authority").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I move Amendment No. 45. It may be helpful and save time if I mention Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 which stand in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, as they are part and parcel of the same matter. The effect of the Government Amendment (No. 45) would be to provide that local authorities must notify their decisions on applications within three months or, if ADHAC advice has been sought, within two months of that advice being provided. Since ADHACs should normally be able to provide advice within one month, these two limits are effectively the same. The Association of District Councils have agreed to this Amendment. They are happy with it and would be rather concerned if one made the time any shorter.
Regarding the point about putting a time factor in, which arose when I listened very carefully to all the arguments on Committee, I think that a complete case has been made out for it. We are now discussing whether it should be two months or three months. We are proposing three months. We are also intending to advise ADHAC in the guidelines we give them to submit their reports to local authorities in normal circumstances within 28 days.
Thus whether or not there is advice from a committee, the overall time limit for a decision will in practice be three months. Of course we all hope that the decision will be reached more quickly. Three months will be the maximum rather than the norm. I should not want three months to become the normal time. If we write in a statutory time limit we have to be careful that we allow for the cycles of committee meetings and for any delays in the case of the ADHACs where they want more information, so one is not always tripping over excesses in the time factor which bring the whole
740
thing into disrepute. That is why I do not think it would be reasonable to have a shorter time limit. I think the fact that the Association of District Councils feels that this is about right is something of which we should take notice. I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendments on the basis of the one I am moving on behalf of the Government.
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, it is a rare event to be joined by the noble Baroness on a group of Amendments. I hope that our honeymoon will not be too short. I am not only concerned with this time scale. I should like quickly to run through the whole time scale of the procedure. Under this clause, probably the matter is triggered off by the owner notifying the authority that he wishes to gain possession. Then the authority has seven days in which to notify the occupier. The first point I suggest to the noble Baroness is that it will make it much simpler if the owner, at the time of notifying the authority had to notify the occupier. That happens under the planning applications. That is my first point.
Then the authority, the occupier, the owner or all of them together, can seek advice from that unattractively named committee, ADHAC. There is no time limit set within which they must seek advice. This is something that must be looked into. There should be a time limit as there is under planning. Then ADHAC considers the case and reports to the authority. ADHAC sends copies of its recommendation to the owner and occupier. There is no time limit by which time ADHAC has to report. Even though the Amendment of the noble Baroness seeks to insert a time limit on the authority, there will not be a time limit on ADHAC. This point should be looked into. I referred to two months in my Amendment because I believe there is a case for that time limit. There is nothing between us; we all want speed in these decisions. If one looks at other cases in which authorities are under a duty to decide on something, if one looks, for instance, at planning, the period is two months. I submit that a planning application is a great deal more complicated than what we have to consider now.

741
If one looks at social service legislation, I am advised again that the authorities have to decide in a much shorter period, probably a month. There is no case that I can find where three months applies. I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that the whole issue in testing this period of time is to look exactly at what ADHAC has to do and what the authorities have to do. How complicated is it? How difficult will it be to reach a decision? I believe that the matter will be very simple, even for an Englishman or Welshman; of course it does not apply to Scots. It is a comparatively simple issue in the interests of efficient agriculture. It is for that reason that I ask the noble Baroness to look again at the time limit. I should like to thank her for listening to us during the Committee stage and for putting forward this helpful Government Amendment. Perhaps she would look again at the time-scale of her Amendment and other periods I have mentioned. I do not intend to press my Amendment. I hope to get some undertaking from her that she will look at this matter again.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for having taken note of the points made during Committee stage and for having brought forward this Amendment which meets the points we raised. We are appreciative of that, and although the words in the Amendment are "three months", some local authorities may be able to provide the answer in less than three months.
7.41 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL had given Notice of his intention to move as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 46:
Line 2, leave out ("three") and insert ("two").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, before this Amendment is taken, may I get an undertaking from the noble Baroness that she will agree to look again at the time scales?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am willing to look at them, but I would ask the noble Earl not to be too optimistic about the result. I have been into the arguments before and I would just say finally that it is in the interests of the farmer and the farm worker to go to the ADHAC right
742
away. As regards the other points raised by the noble Earl, I hope he will be guided by the wise words of his noble friend Earl Ferrers, who, I thought, put the matter extremely well as regards the question of time.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, my noble friend always speaks wise words; and as I understood it, he was thanking the noble Baroness. I do not move the Amendment.
7.42 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 23, line 34, at end insert—
("() Where an agriculture dwelling-house advisory committee advises that in the interests of efficient agriculture there is urgent need for the provision of suitable alternative accommodation, and the authority has been unable to provide such accommodation within three months from the date of the advice, the applicant shall have the right to use land in his occupation as a site for a caravan for an agricultural worker without any requirement for a site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, and without planning permission, until such time as suitable alternative accommodation is provided by the local authority.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, we come back to another Amendment which tries to get over this problem of rehousing people. So far, we have not found very much give in the Government this afternoon. Most of the briefs must have had "Resist" on them. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she will forget that word "Resist" and listen, as I am sure she will, to the argument. I hope she will find that it is slightly persuasive. I apologise to noble Lords for the fact that I may be a little difficult to hear: my voice, for some extraordinary reason—despite this Bill, or perhaps because of it—seems to have lost its security of tenure, at least momentarily.
This Amendment tries to resolve the problem of providing accommodation on the farm for an incoming farm worker where a cottage is filled by an ex-employee whom the local authority has not been able to rehouse. There may well be instances where, despite the local authority's duty to rehouse, they have not got a house, and where, despite their option to provide temporary accommodation, they have been unable to do so, or where, despite all the provisions in this Bill, an ex-employee stays on in the house. Our Amendment

743
here seeks to say that when that happens and the farm cottage continues to be tilled by a person who once worked on the farm, and where the ADHAC has said that there is a need for suitable alternative accommodation—and, more, that there is an urgent need—and where the local authority has been unable to provide that accommodation within three months of the ADHAC recommendation, then the farmer may put up a caravan on his farm without going through all the rigmarole of site licences, planning permission, and so on. In short, this Amendment is an escape route when everything else has failed.
One can think, for example, of farms with only one cottage which may well be paralysed if the cottage continues to be occupied by the outgoing worker for whom there is no alternative accommodation available. Equally, the noble Baroness said she hoped the stockman would be put back into the Bill. If that is done, that is a cast-iron example of a stockman's house becoming unavailable, which could render completely impossible the task of looking after the animals. Again, if fruit growers have cold stores containing thousands of pounds worth of fruit, it could all go west if the electricity or the refrigeration breaks down. In all these cases there may well be a need for some form of accommodation available.
The Amendment does not have many attractive features in it as far as the farmer is concerned. Not many farmers would have a caravan already, so they would have either to buy a caravan or to hire it. He has to persuade his new employee to bring himself and his family into a caravan; and not many may care to do that. But at least, if the employee decides to do that, it is as a matter of conscious choice on the part of the incoming employee to go into a caravan, as opposed to the ex-employee being forced against his will to go into a caravan. Under this Amendment, the ex-employee is still enjoying the security of tenure of the farm cottage which this Bill gives to him. This Amendment is merely designed to enable the farmer to continue with the work of the farm.
At Committee stage, we put down an Amendment on similar lines but suggested that the local authority should reimburse
744
the farmer for the cost of providing accommodation, since that was the responsibility of the local authority but one which they were unable to fulfil. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that the idea was unthinkable: there could be no question of compensation to the farmer who provides temporary accommodation. There was nothing very unambiguous about that statement. We have tried to meet the noble Lord, Lord Peart, over this problem, as indeed we have tried over other matters, in that forthright expression of views. In this Amendment we do not propose that there should be any compensation; we are merely saying that when all else has failed and when the ADHAC says there is a case of urgency, the farmer should be enabled to put up a caravan and house his worker, but only until such time as alternative accommodation is found. In other words, once the local authority have provided alternative accommodation, the caravan goes. Therefore, these caravans will be on the site only for a limited duration. It is an encouragement for the local authority to rehouse the worker, which is in the interests of everyone concerned. The countryside will not be littered by unsightly caravans for longer than necessary.
I should be the first to admit that this Amendment is not perfect, and I should never have thought I should see the day when I suggested it was desirable for caravans to be provided for farm workers. When one thinks of the progress in housing over the last 20 years, with modernisation of farm cottages and with the efforts to provide running water, electricity, sanitation and so on, it seems reactionary in the extreme and almost anachronistic that we should recommend that farm workers in certain cases be denied these amenities in good modernised houses and be relegated to caravans. This is one of the results of this Bill, and I venture to suggest that if it were put into the Bill it would at least have the benefit of making agriculture continue to work properly where accommodation is required as a matter of urgency. I beg to move.
Lord SWAYTHLING: My Lords, we all know how long it takes to get planning permission, and I think it is essential that this Amendment should be agreed to. I will not repeat the figures I gave during earlier stages of the Bill, but would just

745
say that I wholeheartedly support this Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I hope the Government will accept this Amendment; indeed, I cannot understand why they would not do so earlier. The number of caravans concerned would be very small because presumably they would be sited near to the farmhouse and buildings and so would not be a blot on the countryside. After all, one can put up a Dutch barn without planning permission, and that is a much larger building and a far greater blot on the countryside. I really can see no objection to this Amendment at all. If it is not accepted, food production will be affected, and, after all, agriculture is our greatest industry. Especially with the balance of payments position as it is, I think it would be madness to do anything which would adversely affect agriculture at this moment, because it is not only food, of course, but involves, leather, wool and so on. Therefore, I beg the Government to accept the Amendment. Most farmers, in any case, will have to hire these caravans, and the percentage would be very small compared with the hundreds and thousands of caravans from which I suffer in Scotland. I do not want them, but here you are niggling over the question of perhaps 2,000 or 3,000, so I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.
Lord COLLISON: My Lords, I find it rather quaint, if that is the right word, that it should be argued that because we are introducing this Bill we are condemning farm workers to live in caravans. I want to make the point that no one can possibly accept that to put farm workers and their families into caravans is a suitable type of accommodation. I am not using the word "suitable" in the way in which I have been using it previously. There are all kinds of objections. A man may have a family of four or five children and to coop them up in a small or even a large caravan costing some thousands of pounds would be quite unsatisfactory and indeed unacceptable to anyone.
The other point is where these caravans are to be sited. How are we going to be satisfied that the land on which they are placed is suitable? There are strong objections in terms of health and hygiene.
746
Unless they are very large caravans have no baths although they may have showers; many simply have washing facilities. How is it possible to keep children clean in those circumstances? Then there is the question of toilets. Caravans have to have some kind of portable toilet such as an Elsan. When all these points are considered, it must be clear that it is not a suitable suggestion to make. As I said, I am not using "suitable" in the sense that we use it in "suitable alternative accommodation". This is unsuitable on much wider grounds and I hope it will be seen that it is an unsatisfactory suggestion to make.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, before the noble Lord spoke I was asking myself on what conceivable grounds this Amendment could be rejected. It seems to me that the only ground which could carry the fain test scintilla of conviction would be what I doubt could be provided—a conclusive demonstration that the situation contemplated would never arise. But I doubt whether that would carry conviction to many of us. Here is a real possibility; namely, that an impersonal advisory committee has come to the conclusion that in the interests of efficient agriculture there is urgent need for the provision of suitable alternative accommodation. The local authority declares that it has no suitable accommodation of a long-term kind.
As was argued earlier this evening, temporary accommodation is not regarded as suitable. In such circumstances, what is to be done? Clearly the provision of a caravan, even with all the amenities which modern caravans can provide is just a pis allez. But to leave the position in which the impersonal advisory committee has said, that there is urgent agricultural need for this accommodation, and then to do nothing, surely is the utmost bankruptcy of administrative imagination. I ask the Government Front Bench what would they do if they were confronted with this situation? It is a situation which may quite easily arise.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, expressed some horror in Committee at the idea of having caravans, I hoped when he got up that he was going to ask on what conceivable grounds could the Amendment be accepted, and that I was going to be able to lean on him for the answer. However, he

747
let me down and went on to the reject it side. In reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, I do not think our food industry depends on caravans. I think we are boosting this particular problem and getting it rather out of context. I find myself rather puzzled, because on some previous Amendments—certainly two to which my noble friend the Leader of the House replied—several noble Lords referred to numbers of cottages which were unoccupied. It seems rather odd on the one hand to grumble about this and to try to find ways of dealing with these cottages, and at the same time to get "het-up" about the lack of automatic planning permission for caravans. Nobody is saying that caravans cannot be put on people's land. Noble Lords have said that they have seen caravans all over the place.
We are saying that the effect of the clause would be to provide farmers with automatic planning permission, in cases which an ADHAC had advised were urgent and where the local authority had been unable to provide alternative accommodation within three months of that advice. One of the things which we feel we do not know—and there have been so many contrary statements made—is the projection of housing for farm workers. I suggest that we wait and see how the Bill works and how many cases there are where the ADHAC has said that there is an urgent agricultural need and the local authority has been unable to do anything within the three months. This is what we are talking about.
We are also talking about the local authority giving planning permission. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and other noble Lords, behave as though planning permission for caravans is never given. Of course it is, because many noble Lords have said that they see them all over the place; they do not like the look of them, but are prepared to put up with them in the circumstances. I think it would be quite wrong to try to find justification for putting farmers or any other group in a privileged position where the change of land use is involved without first obtaining planning permission. I will not say that in every case that there are no planning delays, but fortunately planning delays have been cut down in the last year or so. On the other hand, because we have a
748
planning system in this country we do not have the sort of chaos in the countryside which one sees in many other countries, even in America, who have not the planning laws that we have. Nobody has put a figure on it—it may amount to only a handful of caravans. To cut across the planning system seems to me to be using a sledgehammer to hit a very small nut.
What I propose to do if noble Lords will withdraw their new clause, is to point out to local authorities by circular that in such cases they should look favourably upon requests for planning permission for a caravan, and deal with such applications as quickly as possible, so that we do not break through our planning system. We can also try to speed this up. I should not like for one moment, and neither would noble Lords—this is the same argument that I used on the temporary accommodation Amendments—to see caravans taking the place of permanent accommodation, which could happen if there was no planning control; and that is what this Amendment really means, despite noble Lords' good intentions. I know exactly what the noble Earl is after, and his personal dislike for what he said he is doing in the best cause.
So, as I said, I ask noble Lords to withdraw their new clause, and I will undertake that local authorities are asked by circular to look at these cases in a way that is different from that in which they look at other cases, over which they may be more leisurely.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, the caravans all over the place, which I was talking about, are tourist caravans which have no planning permission. They come and park on one's land, sometimes in hundreds. I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Collison, that one can get extremely nice caravans—far nicer than the average cottage.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, if I may take advantage of that procedural device, I think she has misrepresented me. I never expressed an abhorrence of caravans as such. I have been trying to think what I can have said which gave her that impression, and all that I can conjecture, without reference to Hansard, is that I thought that the alternative suggestion

749
of temporary accommodation would be preferable to a caravan. But I am not sure whether or not that was said.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I will check Hansard if I may and write to the noble Lord.
Earl FERRERS: I am bound to say that I feel very disappointed. I would first say to the noble Lord, Lord Collison, who said that caravans are not suitable accommodation, that there is absolutely nothing to make an incoming farm worker move into a caravan. It would be of his own choice. Therefore, if he elected to go on to a farm with that proviso, I do not see there is anything for the noble Lord to worry about, unless he feels that all forms of caravans and mobile homes are inadequate forms of accommodation.
The noble Baroness said that one of the troubles is that this would turn into permanent accommodation, but of course it will not. The Amendment says at the very end that caravans can be put up only,
"…until such time as suitable alternative accommodation is provided by the local authority."
That would turn into permanent accommodation only if the local authority could not provide an alternative. Throughout all this business of trying to get over what I have described as the crunch, where by virtue of this Bill people are staying on in houses which renders efficient agriculture impossible, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, have not
come up with any suitable alternative at all. The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, was quite right when he asked: When the ADHACs say that there is real urgency, what do you do? The noble Baroness says: "Nothing. Leave it." If I may say so with the greatest respect, the Government's arguments on this Amendment have shown a form of intellectual bankruptcy. When we ask what we are to do about this problem, we are told, "Do not worry; let us see how it will work out". That is not good enough.
All we are saying is that if everything else has failed and there is a degree of urgency—I gave as examples fruit farms and farms with only one house on them—and people cannot be rehoused, then let the farmer put up a caravan until people are rehoused. I cannot see anything disagreeable in that. The noble Baroness said, "Go through the planning permission procedure". But what is the point of planning permission if it is only to allow the planners to say No? Then what? We are still in the same position. So I ask your Lordships to agree to insert this Amendment into the Bill as a last resort and, as I said in moving it, as an escape route when all other alternatives have failed.
8.6 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 63; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Gray, L.

Mottistone, L.

Banks, L.

Grey, E.

Newall, L

Barrington, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Northchurch, B.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Northesk, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Henley, L.

Onslow, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hereford, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Burnham, L.

Hives, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Caithness, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Robbins, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carlisle, Bp.

Lloyd, L.

Sandys, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Savile, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Seear, B.

Congleton, L.

Lyell, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathclyde, L.

de Clifford, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Middleton, L.

Swaythling, L.

Elles, B.

Monck, V.

Tranmire, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Vickers, B.

Ferrers, E.

Monk Bretton, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Gisborough, L.

Monson, L.

Westbury, L.

Gowrie, E.

Morris, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Gardiner, L.

Oram, L.

Bacon, B.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Beswick, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Peddie, L.

Birk, B.

Gregson, L.

Phillips, B.

Brimelow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Segal, L.

Brockway, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Shepherd, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacobson, L.

Snow, L.

Castle, L.

Jacques, L.

Stedman, B.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Collison, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

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

Lovell-Davis, L.

Willis, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
8 14 p.m
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 23, line 42, after ("applicant") insert ("in the same capacity as that in which he was employed by the applicant at the time when the application was made").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think that at last I am bringing forward an Amendment which will be welcomed by noble Lords opposite. In the Bill as it is at present drafted, a local authority is obliged to provide suitable alternative accommodation only for the occupier of a farm cottage who is no longer, or will be no longer, employed by the farmer who makes the application. I believe that as a general principle this is right, and indeed there has not been any disagreement to date over it. However, as a general rule, it could bear harshly on the farmer and, for that matter, on the farm worker. I am thinking here of a farm worker who is close to retirement age, gives up his job on the farm, which means that he must live close to the farm, and takes on a less demanding job. We do not want to discourage farmers and farm workers from this kind of arrangement. I beg to move.
Clause 31 [Agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees]:
Lord PEART Lord PEART moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 25, line 29, leave out from ("in") to ("advice") in line 30 and insert ("or in connection with their giving, at the request of the committee, any").
The noble Lord Said: My Lords, I beg to move formally this drafting Amendment.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 25, line 41, leave out ("or forestry").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 6 [Notification of disposals]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 52:
Leave out Schedule 6.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential upon the deletion of Clause 32 which was agreed to in Committee. I beg to move.
Clause 32 [Information about housing accommodation]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 26, line 31, leave out ("or forestry").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 7 [Amendments of Housing Finance Act I972]:
8.17 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 49, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—
("(a) if a rent is registered for the dwelling under Part IV of the Rent Act 1968, any rent paid in excess of that rent or in excess of the rent limit under Schedule 5 to the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor Amendment which will ensure that in calculating rent allowances payable to statutory tenants, the local authority will disregard rent paid in excess of the rent limit under Schedule 5 if the rent qualifies for phasing under that Schedule. I beg to move.
Clause 35 [Suspension of condition attached to planning permission]:
Earl FERRERS moved Earl FERRERS moved Amendments Nos. 55 to 57 en bloc:
Page 29, line 4, leave out ("or forestry").
Page 29, line 23, leave out ("or forestry").
Page 29, line 25, leave out ("or forestry").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 55, 56 and 57 are all drafting Amendments. If it is to the convenience of the House, I beg to move these Amendments en bloc.
Clause 36 [Interpretation]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 29, leave out lines 28 and 29.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 58. With the leave of the House perhaps I may speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 58A and 58B. They are minor drafting Amendments of the definition of "licence". I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 58A and 58B:
Page 29, line 35, leave out ("includes") and insert ("means").
Page 29, line 38, at end insert ("and references to the granting of a licence shall be construed accordingly").
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 59 and 60:
Page 30, line 3, after ("includes") insert ("statutory tenant and also includes").
Page 30, line 4, at end insert—
("(1A) In this Act references to tenancies include, unless the context otherwise requires, references to licences, and cognate expressions, including those in subsection (1) above, shall be construed accordingly.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg formally to move Amendments Nos. 59 and 60. I have already spoken to these Amendments.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 30, line 4, at end insert—
("(1B) For the purposes of this Act a dwelling-house may be a house or part of a house.")
Schedule 1 [Index of general definitions.]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 32, line 8, column 2, leave out ("36(1)") and insert ("36(1B)")
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 65 en bloc.
Page 32, line 25, column 2, leave out ("Section 2") and insert ("Schedule 1A")
Page 32, line 26, column 2, leave out ("Section 2") and insert ("Schedule 1A")
Insert the following new Schedule—
("SCHEDULE 1A

MEANING OF "RELEVANT LICENCE" AND "RELEVANT TENANCY"
Relevant licence
1. In this Act "relevant licence" means any licence for the exclusive occupation of a dwelling-house which—

(a) if it were a tenancy, and

(b) if the provisions of the Rent Act 1968 mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 below were modified as mentioned in those paragraphs,

would be a protected tenancy for the purposes of that Act.
Relevant tenancy
2. In this Act "relevant tenancy" means any tenancy of a dwelling-house which—

(a) is not a protected tenancy for the purposes of the Rent Act 1968, but

(b) would be such a tenancy if the provisions of that Act mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 below were modified as mentioned in those paragraphs,

other than a tenancy to which Part I or Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies

755
and a tenancy of an agricultural holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948.
Supplemental
3.—(1) Section 2 of the Rent Act 1968(tenancies expected from the definition of "protected tenancy") is modified as follows.
(2) In subsection (1) omit paragraph (a) (tenancy at a low rent) and paragraph (d) (tenancy of a dwelling-house comprised in any agricultural holding etc.).
(3) For paragraph (b) of subsection (1) (tenancy of a dwelling-house bona fide let at a rent which includes payments in respect of board or attendance) substitute the following paragraph—
"(b) it is a bona fide term of the tenancy that the landlord provides the tenant with board or attendance".
(4) For subsection (3) (payments in respect of attendance to form a substantial part of the whole rent) substitute the following sub-section—
"(3) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that meals provided in the course of a person's employment in agriculture do not constitute board for the purposes of subsection (1)(b) above; and a term that the landlord provides the tenant with attendance shall not be taken to be a bona fide term for those purposes unless, having regard to its value to the tenant, the attendance is substantial."
4.—(1) Section 102 of the Rent Act 1968 (tenant sharing accommodation with persons other than landlord) is modified as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(separate accommodation deemed to be dwelling-house let on or subject to protected or statutory tenancy) immediately before the words "the separate accommodation", in the last place where they occur, insert the words "then, subject to subsection (1A) below" and for the words "the following provisions of this section" substitute the words "subsections (2) to (7) below".
(3) After subsection (1) insert the following subsection—
"(1A) Subsections (1) above shall not apply in relation to accommodation which would, apart from this subsection, be deemed to be a dwelling-house subject to a protected tenancy if—

(a) the accommodation consists of only one room, and

b) at the time when the tenancy was granted, not less than three other rooms in the same building were occupied as residential accommodation by separate occupiers, or were available for such occupation, on such terms as are mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above.".

5. The other provisions of the Rent Act 1968 which are relevant for the purposes of the above definitions, and which are therefore also applied by this Schedule, include—
section 1 (definition of "protected tenancy");
section 4 (no protected or statutory tenancy
756
where landlord's interest belongs to Crown);
section 5 (no protected or statutory tenancy where landlord's interest belongs to local authority, etc.);
section 5A (no protected tenancy in certain cases where landlord's interest belongs to resident landlord);
section 6 (rateable value and appropriate day);
section 103 (certain sub-lettings not to exclude any part of sub-lessor's premises from protection).")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments 63, 64 and 65. I beg to move them en bloc.
Clause 37 [Isles of Scilly.]:
Lord PEART Lord PEART moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 30, line 15, leave out ("Scilly Isles") and insert ("Isles of Scilly").
Clause 42 [Short title, etc.]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 31, line 17, at end insert—
("() In Schedule 15 to the Rent Act 1968, the entry relating to section 75(3) of the Housing Act 1964 (which is superseded by paragraph 9 of Schedule 8 to this Act) is hereby repealed.")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Schedule 8 [Consequential and minor amendments.]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 50, line 10, at end insert—
("Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (c.65)
1. At the end of section 14(2) of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 add the following words—
"or
(c) is a dwelling-house which is subject to a protected occupancy or statutory tenancy as defined in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976."
2. At the end of section 18(3) of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 add the following words—
"or
(c) where the premises are a dwelling-house subject to a protected occupancy or statutory tenancy as defined in the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976.".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a minor consequential Amendment

757
which amends the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 51, line 28, leave out ("section 2(1) of") and insert ("Schedule 1A to")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 69, which is consequential.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 52, leave out lines 11 to 13 and insert—
("12. In section 33(1) of the Rent Act 1965 (special provisions with respect to agricultural employees) for the words "section 17(1) of the Agricultural Wages Act 1948" substitute the words "section 1 of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976" and at the end of that subsection add the words "but is not a statutory tenant as defined in the said Act of 1976".")
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 70, which is self-explanatory.
8.22 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No.71:
Page 52, line 18, at end insert—
("Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 (c.75)
13A. In section 7 of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 (provision for case where Rent Act applies and marriage is terminated by divorce etc.)—
(a) in subsection (1) for the words "a protected tenancy or a statutory tenancy" substitute the words—
"(a) a protected tenancy or statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968, or
(b) a statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976";
(b) in subsection (2) after the words "protected tenancy" insert the words "within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968";
(c) in subsection (3) after the words "statutory tenancy", in the first place where they occur, insert the words" within the meaning of the Rent Act 1968";
(d) after subsection (3) insert the following subsection—
"(3A) Where the spouse is entitled as aforesaid to occupy the dwelling-house by virtue of a statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, the court may by order direct that, as from the date on which the decree is made absolute, that spouse shall
758
cease to be entitled to occupy the dwelling-house and that his or her former spouse shall be deemed to be the tenant or, as the case may be, the sole tenant under that statutory tenancy; and a spouse who is deemed as aforesaid to be the tenant under a statutory tenancy shall be (within the meaning of that Act) a statutory tenant in his own right, or a statutory tenant by succession, according as his or her former spouse was a statutory tenant in his own right, or a statutory tenant by succession.";
(e) for subsection (8) substitute the following subsection—
"(8) In this section—
'landlord' includes any person from time to time deriving title under the original landlord and also includes, in relation to any dwelling-house, any person other than the tenant who is, or but for Part II of the Rent Act 1968 or Part II of the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 would be, entitled to possession of the dwelling-house;
'tenancy' includes sub-tenancy."")
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 52, line 25, after ("sub-paragraph (2)") insert ("for the words subsection (3) "substitute the words" subsection (5) "and")
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 73, 74 and 75 en bloc:
Page 53, line 50, leave out from ("premises '") to ("a") in line 51 and insert ("includes, if the sub-tenancy in question is").
Page 54, line 1, leave out ("includes").
Page 54, line 9, after ("(c)") insert ("if the sub-tenancy in question is a protected or statutory tenancy to which section 10A above applies").
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 55, leave out lines 28 to 33.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No.77:
Page 58, line 23, at end insert—
("Rent Act 1974 (c.51)
In section 13(2) of the Rent Act 1974 (effect on furnished sub-tenancy of determination of superior unfurnished tenancy) for the words "tenancy or statutory tenancy", in each place where they occur, substitute the words

759
"statutorily protected tenancy" and after that subsection insert the following subsection—
"(3) In this section 'statutorily protected tenancy' has the same meaning as in the said section 18(2).".").
Schedule 9 [Transitional.]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 78, 80 and 81 en bloc:
Page 59, line 6, leave out ("section 2(1) of") and insert ("Schedule 1A to").
Page 59, line 21, leave out ("section 2(1) of") and insert ("Schedule 1A to").
Page 59, line 28, leave out ("section 2(1) of") and insert ("Schedule 1A to").

SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
8.26 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Willis, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich) moved Amendment No. 1:
Leave out Clause 2 and insert the following new clause:
Restrictions on evidence at trials for rape etc.
.—(l) If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a rape offence to which he pleads not guilty, then, except with the leave of the judge, no evidence and no question in cross-examination shall be adduced or asked at the trial, by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial, about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that defendant.
(2) The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application made to him in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of a defendant; and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied that it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question to be asked.
(3) In subsection (1) of this section "complainant" means a woman upon whom, in a charge for a rape offence to which the trial in question relates, it is alleged that rape was committed, attempted or proposed.
(4) Nothing in this section authorises evidence to be adduced or a question to be asked which cannot be adduced or asked apart from this section.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and, if I may, I will speak to the other Amendments standing in my name and which are consequential. The purpose of these Amendments, which arose out of an undertaking given in Committee to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, to reconsider Clause 2 is to replace that clause by a simpler version. The remainder of these Amendments are consequential upon that.
The new clause omits some of the less important detail in the present Clause 2, while achieving substantially the main purpose of the Heilbron recommendations which is, of course, to prevent character assassination. We had a long discussion on this matter of Clause 2. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, and also the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, spoke to it. We had another look at the phraseology of the clause and we tabled this Amendment. I undertook to discuss this matter with the Promoters of the Bill and they have pronounced themselves as content. I beg to move.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, my noble and learned friend from the Cross-Benches, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, has asked me to say that he is extremely sorry not to be present on this occasion, and although he does not know what I am about to say he has also agreed with me that the right course to adopt is the one which I am about to recommend to the House; namely, that this Amendment should be agreed to.
I think this is an example of the way in which the two Houses ought to be able to work together. My relations with the Home Office, though not always friendly, are, I hope, always rational and usually civilised, and what has happened, as on the Bail Bill when we had rather a similar situation, is that after discussion in your Lordships' House in which the disadvantages in this case of the inordinate wordiness of Clause 2 as it stands were gone into and the possible practical disadvantages to which this verbiage would almost certainly give rise were explained, the noble

761
Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, promised to take these thoughts away and try to devise something simpler. He has done so. Whether what he has devised is perfect or not, I know not, but the perfect is often the enemy of the good, and I can unhesitatingly recommend to the House that this Amendment should be accepted. I also thank him for the trouble he has taken and I thank his colleagues in the Commons, who presumably have endorsed what the Government are about to do. I think it greatly improves the Bill and indeed many of the difficulties and objections which some of us felt to be in the old Clause 2 are removed by this new and more compendious form of words, and I thank the noble Lord very much.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, for his acceptance of this Amendment which I think goes a great deal of the way towards meeting the objections that were made at Second Reading. I also join with him in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for what he has done in respect of this Amendment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 en bloc:
Page 4, line 11, leave out ("such a trial as is") and insert ("a trial at which a person is charged as").
Page 4, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
Page 4, line 34, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) the words "in the absence of the jury" in subsection (2) were omitted; and").
Page 4, line 38, leave out ("other").
On Question, Whether the Bill do now pass?
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I think it is customary on these occasions to congratulate the sponsor of a Private Member's Bill on having undertaken the public duty, not always an easy one, of passing a Public General Act of Parliament. The thanks of the House are due to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for what he has done.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I should like to join the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint
762
Marylebone, in what he has just said. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Willis for having sponsored this Bill in your Lordships' House. I think the Bill has been improved as a result of the discussions we have had here. I am grateful for the accommodating attitude my noble friend adopted, and for that of the Promoters of the Bill in another place, which enabled us to achieve this very happy result.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

ENERGY BILL [H.L.]
8.31 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.1]
Clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
' (1A) Orders under subsection (1) above regulating or prohibiting the use of any of the substances mentioned in the subsection, or of electricity, may be made at any time but only where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable for the purpose of conserving energy.
Subject to this, Orders under the subsection may be made only when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force.
(1B) When no Order in Council under section 3 is in force the Secretary of State shall before making an order under subsection
(1) consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order, including both consumers and Suppliers of energy, and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate.'.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. The purpose of this Amendment is mainly to transfer the energy conservation provision from Clause 3 to Clause 1, but it also incorporates into the Bill a provision on which the Government gave an assurance during an earlier debate in your Lordships' House. With regard to the main purpose of the Amendment, noble Lords will recall that in the course of our earlier debates there was criticism that the conservation provision was out of place in Clause 3, which was otherwise concerned only with the procedures for activating the emergency powers in the

763
Bill. Similar criticisms were voiced in another place, and the Government tabled this Amendment in an effort to meet these arguments.
The wording of the energy conservation provision is very similar to the form in which it left this House but, as I have mentioned, there is one important difference. During the Report stage in this House we were, I believe, agreed that consultation on proposed energy conservation orders should include both consumers' representatives and representatives of the energy industries likely to be affected, and my noble friend Lord Shepherd, on behalf of the Government, gave your Lordships an assurance to this effect. Your Lordships will therefore be pleased to see that the Government have now agreed to an Amendment which reflects this intention on the face of the Bill. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Kirkhill.)
8.36 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this Bill started in this House, so these Amendments come to us for the first time, and in this they are slightly different. There are a number of other Amendments with which we shall be dealing in the next ten days or so. Before I deal specifically with this Amendment, perhaps I may be permitted one or two remarks about the situation in which we find ourselves in general. We had our first debate on this Bill some seven months ago. We feel it is an example of the Government's mismanagement of their business that we find this Bill sandwiched in among all the onerous duties imposed on us in the last days and nights of the Session. It is something of a pity that we are having to rush the Bill through, because we can all feel rather proud of the way we have handled it up to now. When originally dealing with the Bill, we described it as both pretentious and depressing. We said it represented a formidable extension of the powers of the Executive, and nothing that has happened in the debates in either House has changed our opinion. Nevertheless, it would be ungracious if we did not recognise that
764
many improvements have been made in the Bill in its passage through both Houses. The Minister of State himself, Doctor Mabon, said the Bill was not perfect, and I suppose we should regard that as a concession. I am not sure that we do, but the Bill has improved from the one we originally saw, and this House can claim a good deal of the credit for that.
My Lords, during Committee stage we sought to establish three lines of argument. We sought to distinguish between those provisions which were designed to meet emergency conditions, and those which would be permanently in use. Then we attempted to ensure that powers required under international agreements would not be abused or exceeded for domestic political reasons. I daresay cynics would accuse us of having nasty suspicious minds. Similarly, we were anxious that energy conservation should not be used as a pretext for the State to intervene more and more deeply in the affairs of the energy industries, although I must say once again, in passing, that I still regret that we have got into the colloquial use of the word "conservation", when we should be using the phrase, "energy saving", because it leads to misunderstandings.
We incorporated a number of safeguards into the legislation by Amendments. We succeeded in clarifying the domestic circumstances in which emergency powers can be activated, and the temporary nature of these powers was incorporated in the Bill. Then we qualified the permanent controls over end use, which is bringing us back to these particular Amendments. We qualified these powers so that they could be used only for the purposes of conserving energy. At the time of passing the Bill through this House we removed entirely the permanent controls on petroleum prices. We shall be coming to that in the next Amendment, as we also will be dealing in a minute with the gas clauses which were completely rewritten. We can take some encouragement from the fact that another place accepted, at least as a basis for argument, a number of the changes we made, except for the price control issue.
When we come to this particular Amendment we find that the Government have moved some distance towards us in their attitude towards conservation. As

765
the noble Lord has said, there was some argument as to where in the Bill this would be most logically slotted. I have to say that we still think that the way the whole Bill is laid out is thoroughly confusing, because one has to keep dodging backwards and forwards from one clause to another. Nevertheless, this provision should not have been included in a clause which was mostly to do with emergency powers. However, the Government have now specifically made mention of conservation as a purpose in the Bill. Clearly it is a considerable step forward that appropriate people and industries should be consulted before these powers are used. We still feel that the new separate clause on conservation which we put forward would have been a better way of dealing with the situation.
My Lords, the two major issues on which there is a difference between us are that on the one hand conservation should be used as an excuse for intervention, and secondly, the issue of price control, to which we shall be coming in a moment. Nevertheless, the Government have done their best, I think, within the limitations of the way in which they see this Bill, to meet some of the objections we have raised. We are less than satisfied that the word, "conservation" is not very clearly spelled out in this Bill. We had the same kind of arguments about industrial democracy. So far, conservation appears to have meant three rather minor things: we have speed limits, we have lighting for advertisements, and office heating, and these appear to be rather trivial and niggling little issues. One would have hoped that conservation might have been treated in a rather more grandiose fashion if the Government mean what one would hope they mean by the word "conservation".
This is why we feel that the word does not fit very well into the Bill as it is now before us. What we felt was that if the Government were really determined to introduce these powers into a Bill which is primarily designed to provide emergency powers and honour international commitments, then the job should have been done properly. I must apologise for repeating myself. The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, will find some of this familiar ground, but it is a very long time ago, and we have even had a change of faces. This, of course, creates a problem for all
766
of us, in so far as we no longer have a Minister in this House who has actually got a foot in the Department; so we have to deal more gently with the Minister who can only speak to his brief.
However, we felt that end use control could be used only for the purpose of conservation of energy when to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom. We also felt that consultations would have to take place between consumers and suppliers of energy and other appropriate organisations, and we have gone a long way down that road. We have also said that we would have hoped that the Secretary of State would make public the likely effect of his controls, and we believe that the Secretary of State should be asked to make an annual report justifying the continuance of any orders which he chooses to make under these additional powers which he is taking. At this hour, I do not propose to labour the point that was made so very well by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. This will come up again on our second Amendment, and it is my excuse for making a rather long dissertation at this juncture; a number of these considerations apply to several of these Amendments.
We have to recognise that, particularly as regards price control, if by "price control we mean controlling maximum prices, then this is directly contrary to the interests of energy conservation. I think everybody would agree, whether or not one likes it, that the most effective form of energy conservation is to have high prices, and people are currently complaining about the effects it is having on them. It may be unsatisfactory, but if you are talking about energy conservation this is the one that really works. We are afraid that the use of the word smacks of platitudinous posturing, and we cannot be blamed, I think, in view of some of the things which have been said during the course of the debate on this Bill, if we are suspicious. We give the Government warning that we shall be on the look-out for abuses of the powers the Secretary of State is taking, in spite of the attempts that have been made to meet some of the complaints in Amendment No. 1.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I have spoken so often in this House on the subject of energy conservation that I shall relieve your minds right away by

767
saying that I do not intend to take up more than three or four minutes of your time this evening. However, this seems an appropriate point at which to stress once again the vital importance of conserving energy, which is not an optional extra to but an essential part of our overall energy policy.
This Bill can play some part in safeguarding our energy resources, and in the shorter term help to reduce our balance of payments, for we are still, in spite of the steadily increasing flow from the North Sea, importing oil at a cost of £10 million a day, if not more. But the Bill will have any significant effect only if it is properly implemented in its relevant sections, and if, in addition, it is the Government's real purpose to maintain an effective programme of energy conservation, if in fact the Government mean business.
In this respect, I commend to your Lordships an excellent report published yesterday by The Industry Group of the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation. It points out:
"The principal Department of Energy activity considered to date is the 'Save it' campaign, and in particular the proposed future programme of this campaign in so far as this relates to industry. The Industry Group feels strongly that it is important to maintain the momentum of the publicity if the impact is not to be lost. The advertisements, film and booklets represent a very useful start, but much remains to be done in this direction.".
My Lords, there is a growing feeling in industry that energy conservation may no longer be an important commitment within the Government's energy policy. The same undoubtedly applies too the domestic sector, too. The "Save it" campaign did an excellent job. It was, of course, costly, and although it resulted in very substantial reductions in energy use—particularly in cutting out the wasteful use of energy—one could not expect the Treasury to accept continued expenditure at that level at this time. But the essence of a successful publicity campaign is that it be sustained. The "Save it" campaign made a tremendous impact, but there must be a follow through at many different promotional levels—some of them of comparatively low cost—if its effect is not to be slowly eroded.
The Energy Bill, I assume, however, will not be considered the end of the
768
story so far as energy conservation is concerned, but that the Government through the Department of Energy and other relevant Departments of State, all of whom can make a contribution, will take note of the report of the Industry Group of the Advisory Council on Energy Conservation and give a high priority to constructing an effective and sustained energy conservation programme.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I fully accept Lord Strathcona's rather wide-ranging consideration in depth of a number of the earlier provisions in this Bill, and I think it appropriate that he should have linked his remarks, through the pious platitude of energy conservation, as he thought of it as being, to some mention of the provision to control the price of oil products. I think, however, the noble Lord might agree with me when I suggest to him that my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis has helped to dispel any illusion that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, might have about the Government's seriousness of intent on the question of energy conservation. Speaking for the Government, I can assure the noble Lord that the phrase has been injected in clauses in the Bill in the very real hope that some purposeful steps will ensue in that very desirable area.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, was fair enough to say in his opening remarks that the Bill has been improved here and in the other place. I think there is evidence to show that the Government have not been inflexible. We have met a number of points fairly and very clearly.
I do not think I can usefully add to my earlier remarks, except to say that if one were here briefly—and the noble Lord touched on this point—to mention the control of price of oil products at all times, I can say that the Commons inserted this provision in Clause 1(2) and it would have the same effect as the powers sought in the Bill as originally introduced to your Lordships. It re-enacts the oil product price control powers available in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973, which are subject to annual renewal by Order in Council. The Government regard this as a reserve provision. The Government do not have any immediate plans to use this power to control oil product prices, apart from continuing the control of paraffin prices. The Government accept the real

769
difficulties of operating a price control system, yet on policy grounds are determined to have such a power available. I commend this Amendment to your Lordships' House.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.2.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
'This power is exercisable at any time in the case of petroleum products, but otherwise is exercisable only when an Order in Council under section 3 is in force'.
8.51 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I had touched on this Amendment in my earlier remarks. It restores to the Bill the permanent power to regulate the prices of petroleum products. This provision was deleted from the Bill by your Lordships' House at Committee stage. Your Lordships will have observed that this provision has been reinstated in Clause 1 and not in Clause 3 where it stood when the Bill was previously before your Lordships' House. This transfer leaves Clause 3 solely concerned with the procedures for activating the emergency provisions of the Bill.
The power proposed under this subsection—and I made mention of this earlier—is a continuation of a similar power in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act under which only one product, paraffin, is controlled at present. It will enable the Government to make orders at any time should they deem it necessary to regulate the price at which petroleum products may be supplied. Again, as I emphasised a few moments ago, the Government regard this as a reserve power to be held against unforeseen contingencies. Many of the major industrial countries already have such powers, and some use them. Apart from premium paraffin the Government have no immediate plans to control the prices of oil products except to the extent provided for by the Counter-Inflation Act.
The supply situation can, however, change quickly and in an unpredictable way, as the OPEC developments in 1973 and subsequently have shown. We must be able to move quickly to protect the national interest, or the interests of particu-
770
lar classes of producers or consumers. However, I can assure your Lordships, and I want particularly to emphasise this point, that the Government would not introduce the new controls without full prior consultation with the industry, and I make that point very clearly.
It has been said that the Government already have extensive price control powers under the Price Code, and it has been asked why they should be extended. The powers in the Counter-Inflation Act and the Price Code, I am advised, are general powers. They are inappropriate for fixing the prices of individual oil products; neither do they permit an exact controlled retail price to be fixed, whether it be in the interests of the retailer or of the consumer. No decision has yet been taken about the longer term arrangements for price control under the counter-inflation policy, and it is therefore, in the Government's view, important to have permanent powers available in this key area, which in the Government's view affects us, the citizens, in so many and varying ways. I commend this Amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
8.55 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved as an Amendment to the Commons Amendment:
Line 4, at end insert ("provided that, in the case of petroleum products when such an Order in Council is not in force, this power if exercised shall be exercised from time to time so as to set maximum prices only and to ensure that such prices when taken together enable the suppliers of the petroleum products so regulated to recover the full economic cost of supply for those products at all times whilst the said power is being exercised when such Order is not in force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not entirely clear as to what is the proper procedure, but it is clear that my Amendment, No. 2A, is an Amendment to No. 2, and I shall therefore be speaking to these two Amendments together. Obviously we have been disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to accept the Amendments that were put in in this House removing price control. This is perhaps the single biggest political disagreement between us now that remains in this Bill. We twice rejected price control in this House, and the Liberals

771
in another place joined with the Opposition in resisting the replacement of those control powers which were eventually put back at the Report stage on the Floor of the House. We have never challenged the need to have powers of control over the price of any fuel, including petroleum products, in a national or a domestic emergency, and we are not challenging those powers now in our Amendment No. 2A. What we are challenging is the Government's proposal to have an unqualified power of control over the prices of petroleum products outside an emergency.
The Amendment that we have tabled aims to do two things. First, it makes the power of control over prices of petroleum products exercisable at all times. It locates the power in Clause 1 of the Bill instead of Clause 3, which was originally proposed when the Bill was first introduced, as the noble Lord pointed out. Our Amendment seeks to qualify the control which the Government can exercise over the price of petroleum products when we are not in an emergency situation. The qualification is that price control must be administered in such a way that suppliers will be able to recover their economic costs of supply if the market conditions make it possible for them to do so.
This does not in any way affect the powers which may be exercised in an emergency. We still believe, and the Opposition have expressed the view, that the permanent powers of price control of petroleum products outside emergencies are both unnecessary and undesirable. This has been a view which has been supported by the Cross-Benches and the Liberals in this House and by the Liberals in another place. But at this juncture it is clearly not appropriate for us to challenge the permanent price control powers as reinstated by the Government in their Amendment No. 2, in spite of all the misgivings we have about the implications of those powers. But we believe that it would be right for this House to exercise its revising role and try to make sure that the powers which the Government are taking—which are very extensive, and are confined only to one industry, for reasons which I do not believe the Government have ever satisfactorily explained—can only be exercised in a responsible manner.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord that the Amendment is not put forward in any spirit of wrecking the Bill. We hope that it may prove acceptable to them. Indeed, we go so far as to say that it appears to us that we are not asking for anything more than the Government claim they intend to do anyway. At the end of my remarks I hope that perhaps the least we may be able to do is to extract from the Minister some further assurances as to the way in which they see these powers being administered and exercised.
If it is accepted that there are good reasons for saying that these permanent powers are unnecessary and undesirable, then we are all the more justified in arguing that if the Government are determined to have these powers, then they should at least be restricted in such a way that everybody can have confidence that they will be exercised in a responsible manner. It is worth looking back. When this issue was first discussed in your Lordships' House, the Government appeared to see a connection between price control and the end use control for conservation purposes. This was an argument that was pursued at some length by a number of noble Lords in this House, who pointed out that on the whole price control, unless it meant minimum price control, which it practically never does, tends, if anything, to encourage fuel consumption rather than otherwise. This was a point which was made from the Cross-Benches, most effectively I thought, by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, who might have been here to say it for himself had we not drifted somewhat in our timetable this evening.
Our argument against the need for price control has been something on these lines. The industry is a highly competitive one and all the forecasts indicate that there is likely to be a surplus of refinery capacity in Britain and in Western Europe for some years to come, and this will tend to reinforce the competitive pressures. If the Government felt that the industry was behaving in an irresponsible manner, or was colluding to earn excessive profits on its refinery and distribution facilities, it would be perfectly open to the Government to refer those activities to the Monopolies Commission. But I repeat that I am not aware that the Government have ever produced a satisfactory case for singling out the oil industry, alone of

773
all the industries in this country, to be subject to permanent price control. A great deal of our time has been spent on debating nationalisation clauses. Perhaps we should thank God for small mercies: the Government are not proposing to nationalise the oil industry, and they would have a right headache if they did. I do not think that they have claimed that the intention of nationalising other industries it to exercise price control in those industries either. At least, that is not an argument which I remember during the course of the many weary hours we have debated those issues.
Where the oil industry is the same as other industries is that it is controlled by the Price Code in exactly the same way as in every other industry and it would therefore be subject to any general price control which Government saw fit to enforce. We concede right from the beginning—and it is worth saying again; there is no dispute between us—that there may be a need for price control in a domestic or an international emergency. But it is worth emphasising that, as the noble Lord said, many other countries have these powers. If that argument is to be deployed, we should look at what has happened to the countries which have exercised price control. Various formulae have been used designed to give a fair return on investment, but the actual prices in most of these other countries are below the maximum levels because of the effect of market competition.
Therefore it could be argued that the maximum prices in these circumstances do not have any effect except the cost of administering them. But one could go on and ask: in that case, what is the point of having them? Surely, it must be conceded that at the very least they impose a large, unnecessary bureaucracy for which somebody, in the end, has to pay. I have said many times, with the greatest respect to a noble body of men, that there are too many civil servants in this country at present. This is not to say that they do not do a good job, but there are simply too many of them doing it.
I have said this before, but it bears repeating. The classic example of the potential damage that price control can do has been in the natural gas industry in the United States. I do not think that we should labour the point that by con-
774
trolling the inter-State gas prices the United States have encouraged the consumption of natural gas with the result that they have now roared through the availability of this natural resource and are facing a real crisis in a very short time as to how natural gas supplies are to be kept going in the United States. Anybody who has been interested in energy will know that there has been a furious debate raging in the United States for many months now about the question of the pricing of all petroleum products.
The United States authorities have held down the price level of petroleum products, for reasons which no doubt seem good to them, to well below their market level and the result is that consumption is beginning to rise and Project Independence, on which so much store was set—a conservation attempt in its way—has now gone out of the window. In Italy, the Government forced down the prices to such an extent that both Shell and BP have withdrawn from the market. I should not have thought that that was the kind of development that we particularly wanted to see take place in this country.
I believe that in France the Government have juggled prices in such a way that there is now a shortage of naphtha feedstock for the petrochemical industry. If on the other hand one looks at Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, one finds that there has been no monkeying about with the market and the result is that petroleum products are freely available at highly competitive prices in those countries. So I suggest that the overseas experience does not in fact reinforce the Government's claim that price control is an inherently desirable activity.
There is then the complicated technical question that oil products are produced in joint supply, and it is extremely difficult to identify the actual cost of any individual product from a complicated process like a refinery. The analogy has been suggested that it is very difficult to distinguish between the cost of wool and the cost of mutton—and I am sure the noble Lord will appreciate this as a good Scotsman—when they are produced from the same flock. It is a very difficult exercise to carry out. If the Government start setting maximum prices for oil products, how are they going to know that the differentials they establish make economic

775
sense within the industry? If the Government are going to react to the effects of the market, they are for ever going to have to be tinkering around with the prices which they are setting.
The final objection to the re-introduction of this power is that the Government have given very little indication of how they would exercise the very wide and open-ended powers that they are taking. They can introduce major distortions by reducing the prices of one or two products well below the market level, or they might set prices which would bring all the prices below the market level. This would have the effect of putting the oil companies in a position where they were unable to recover the costs of the very large capital investments which they have made to produce these products. We have no indication of what it is the Government intend to do in the exercise of these powers, although the noble Lord has very properly said—and we welcome it—that they would consult freely with the industry. But we have had plenty of examples in recent months of the kind of dialogue of the deaf which passes for consultation. It is a noble aspiration which can sometimes get wrecked in the exercise.
The Government now say that they want these as reserve powers and they have no intention of using them, other than for paraffin, in the immediate future. This is a curious argument, and we ought to address ourselves to the paraffin argument for one second. It is only the premium paraffin to which the noble Lord referred. It is not easy to get statistics, but my understanding is that premium paraffin accounts for something less than 1 per cent, of the market. It really seems grotesque to set up an enormous edifice to control one tiny part of the market. It is true that at the present time paraffin represents the cheapest way for low-income people to heat their houses; but I am told that it is only about one in five old people who in fact take advantage of paraffin heaters. I would suggest that here we are now back in the argument that we had once before—and it is a very difficult argument—which arose about the disconnection charges. The argument simply is that if we want to help those in heating need, then probably price control—anyway, very broadly based price control—is not the best way to set about doing it, any more than it really
776
makes sense to suggest that if those in need are unable to pay their bills for gas or electricity you simply say to them, "Never mind; do not bother to pay your bills; we will get somebody else to pick them up". This is simply not a sensible way to proceed, I would suggest to the noble Lord, and therefore I do not believe we should make a great thing about the paraffin argument.
So when do the Government intend to use these powers? Do they envisage using them in what might be called a sub-crisis, a sub-emergency, which does not warrant the full use of the Government's international or domestic emergency powers but yet warrants control over the prices of petroleum products? If the powers are to be used only in a shortage, then why do we not say so in the Bill? The suspicion that therefore lodges in the minds of the cynics—and I, for this purpose, perhaps, must admit to counting myself among them—is that perhaps the Government see this as a way to control the individual prices of petroleum products as a tool in the detailed regulation of the energy market.
If that is the case, why do the Government think that Ministers and Civil Servants can improve on competitive market forces as a way of operating the market?—and since devolution is going to be much on our tongues in the months to come, I would remind him that the market is a means of devolving the decisions down to the consumers in the market rather than centralising them in the Ministries where the Ministers and civil servants try to run the market. We contend that the cost of price control would be three-fold. There is the cost of the administration and the policing of the controls; then there is a danger of the inflexibility and distortion which controls create in the market; and, thirdly, there is the inevitable damage which will be done to the oil industry who need to, and are accustomed to, operate in a free market or, at least, need to be assured that price controls are run in a fair and predictable fashion. That predictability is not, at the present time, laid down in this Bill.
It is sometimes said that industrial consumers want price controls. If that is the argument, I should be interested to find the industrial consumers who do want price controls for I have not met them.
I would prefer, and I believe consumers would prefer, to see the market performing this function. We find all kinds of dangers illustrated by the paraffin argument. There is the possibility, if the price of premium paraffin is forced down too low, that the consumption will rise too high and there will be a shortage of supply. Would it not be better to tackle that kind of problem of those in heating need by getting to the people who are in need rather than to use this blunt-edged weapon which runs the risk of distorting the whole market? If the Government feel so passionately about the need to control paraffin and this tiny proportion of the whole market, it surprises me that they did not take powers to do so in the Bill.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I cannot really follow the noble Lord's paraffin argument too far. I do not think the Government feel passionately about this question. It is a part of a parcel in the Bill. I do not think we have ever laid too much emphasis on it—or I hope not.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the point is that the only example the Government give of the need for and justification for price control is their need to control premium paraffin. What I am suggesting is that they are building an enormous edifice on a tiny sample of the market, an irrelevant sample and, furthermore, that that is probably the wrong way to tackle that particular problem in any case. I am suggesting that it goes along with the debate we had in this House some time ago about the potential heating needs of people in the coming winter. Price controls of this kind are not relevant to that.
My Lords, I think I had better come back to what our Amendment attempts to do. We are not attempting to strike out the permanent pattern of price controls, however much we might object to them. We leave the Government complete freedom to operate these in emergencies, but we put constraints on the exercise of those powers in non-emergency situations. First, this Amendment confines the Government to the fixing of maximum prices since nobody has suggested that they would want to fix minimum prices. If they needed to be able to fix minimum prices, it would be interesting to know why.
778
Secondly, and this is important, the Government are confined in so doing to set prices which are justifiable in the economics of the cost of supply by the company. Here we are not suggesting that we need to go into the detail of each individual product because the words, when taken together, give the Government some margin to temper the price of a particular product—it may be premium paraffin—by providing that the totality of the products will cover the cost of supply.
It is an interesting fact that I am assured at the present time the down stream part of the industry in Europe is not covering its costs at the present prices. I have already pointed out that this is the effect of competition and the danger will be that the Government will frighten off the companies. If ever there was a time when we needed not to frighten off the companies, when we are busy mortgaging the potential oil supplies which this country confidently expects to get, I would have thought this was a very bad moment to choose to do anything that might jeopardise the arrival of those supplies.
I hope that the Government will accept this Amendment. The only assurance the Government have given otherwise is to say they will consult the industry before tabling an order for price control. There is the danger that the consultative procedure could even be used for delaying the adapting of prices. I do not need to tell the House the potential damage that this could do in a time of inflation at the present speed we are experiencing it. If this Amendment is rejected, may I ask the Minister if he will give some specific assurances. First, in the spirit of our Amendment, we should like to hear the Government say that the price control will not be administered in such a way as to prevent the oil industry from covering its full economic costs of supply across the board. Secondly, will the Government give an assurance that they will pay full regard to market conditions and not unduly distort the differentials between the various products? If they feel it necessary, it might be desirable to have an appeal to an independent accountant in establishing what these differentials should be.
Thirdly, can the Government give an assurance that they will not subject the oil industry to two parallel sets of controls

779
at the same time; that is one under the Price Code and one under the powers they are taking under this Bill. Fourthly, can the Government give a clear and specific indication of when and in what circumstances they intend to use these powers? Is it only in a shortage not warranting emergency powers, or is it really a dirigiste tool giving them the power to shape the energy market? If the Government cannot answer these questions, I am afraid they will strengthen the already considerable anxiety which exists throughout the industry about the powers which they are taking back to themselves in Amendment No. 2 and to which we have addressed ourselves in Amendment No. 2A. I beg to move Amendment No. 2A as an Amendment to Amendment No. 2.
9.19 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has reasonably and properly moved between Amendment No. 2, which the Government commend to your Lordships' House, and his own Amendment, No. 2A. There is a relationship there. From the Government's point of view, I have said all I can say or want to say in support of the Government's Amendment No. 2. I have explained why the Government consider it necessary to take the powers envisaged.
If I may talk for a moment or two about the noble Lord's Amendment No. 2A, it seeks to attach two qualifications to the use of the powers to control oil product prices outside an emergency. The first is that the powers should be used only to set maximum prices and the second is that the average of such maximum prices shall be sufficient to enable suppliers to recover the full economic cost of supply. The Government do not consider it appropriate to write such limitations into the Bill. I believe that the Amendment arises from a continued misunderstanding, if I may say so, of the Government's intention in this matter. It is not the Government's intention to introduce immediately a permanent system of price controls on petroleum products. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, asked earlier why the petroleum industry should be singled out, as I think his phrase was, for such treatment. In the Government's
780
view, oil is a unique commodity. The petroleum industry is a key area of our economy and, with its recent history of massive price increases and supply problems, it is important that the Government should have a permanent power available to promote Government policies and to protect the consumer.
What we are seeking in Amendment No. 2 is a reserve power, to be held against unforeseen contingencies. In the Government's view, it would be inappropriate to limit the powers in the way suggested by the noble Lord's Amendment. However, perhaps it would allay the misgivings of noble Lords opposite and of the oil industry if I remind them that the Government already have similar powers to control oil product prices in the 1973 Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act, but are using them only to control the price of paraffin, in the interests of the poor. We are not making a huge issue of this, but we are putting it on the Record that this is what we are doing.
As I am sure your Lordships will recall, it was the present Government which removed the price controls on petrol and DERV that had been introduced by the Conservatives in 1973. In the Government's view, that hardly suggests that we are not mindful of the needs of the oil industry and of the consumer. It is true that a maximum price control is mainly used to protect the consumer, and I concede the point. But it is, of course, capable of being used to restrict aspects of production and retail use. We must face the fact that the oil supply situation can change quickly and unpredictably and the Government must be able to move quickly to protect the national interest, which of course, includes both suppliers and consumers.
It is the Government's view that the noble Lord's Amendment is too restrictive. Furthermore, it would be impossible to operate if only one or two products were controlled in the way suggested. Oil products are produced in conditions of joint supply: that is, they all come out of a barrel of crude oil. Oil companies have stressed that it is difficult, if not impossible, to allocate individual production costs to each product. Distribution and marketing costs are equally difficult to allocate. How, then, ask the Government, can the full economic cost of supply

781
for such a product be calculated? The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, posed one or two direct questions to me—
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, if the noble Lord is leaving that point, may I say that I do not see anything in my Amendment which suggests that the Government are going to be limited to controlling one product. The whole point of what I was trying to say—and it is written out here quite clearly—is,
"that such prices, when taken together, enable the suppliers of petroleum products so regulated to recover the full economic cost".
If the Government are saying that it restricts the Government to control one product, I must ask him what it is that makes him say that, because that is not in the Amendment.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I do not think I said at any point that it would restrict the control of one product. I have been attempting to explain that the oil industry does not seem able to break down its own cost structure, and therefore in the Government's view the Amendment would be difficult to sustain. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, asked of me at least six direct questions. He asked how the Government assess the differentials they establish in a way which would make economic sense. I think that was the substance of his remarks. This is a matter on which we would consult the industry. I give that assurance.
I almost hesitate to return to this, but in exercising paraffin control we have consulted widely to ensure that the appropriate differentials between paraffin and middle distillates were maintained. I will not apologise, but I would emphasise that the Government lay some stress, without in my view being quite so paranoid about it as the noble Lord was suggesting on this question of the control of paraffin. If it is of help to him, I can advise that information extracted from the 1975 Family Expenditure Surrey shows that a larger proportion of the low income households than the better off households use paraffin. I think he admitted that point himself. In fairness, I should say that we on this side accept that a good deal of paraffin is sold to consumers other than the poor, but we
782
consider that the needs of pensioners and others on low incomes are paramount.
To return to the six points placed very clearly before me, I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, was kind enough to give me some intimation that he would at least ask for the four assurances which he seeks from me, and these were contained in his closing remarks. Perhaps he will be prepared to accept an omnibus answer ranging through his four postulates. I think I have already dealt with some of the points in the earlier remarks I made as we have come through Amendments Nos. 1 to 2A. I do not think it is possible to be specific about the criteria which the Government might employ when using these powers, nor in the Government's view is it appropriate to write such limitations into the Bill. I have made some points about that quite recently. I made the point earlier that the Government are seeking here a reserve power to be held against some unforeseen circumstance or set of circumstances. I aver that the Government record in this regard speaks for itself. I mentioned that we terminated the control of petrol and DERV introduced by the last Government, and at the moment we are maintaining only a control of paraffin.
I have explained why we need these powers which apply to specific products as well as the more general powers under the counter-inflation policy. The Government have already given an assurance, and I repeat it and emphasise it, that they would not introduce new controls without full prior consultation with the industry. We already do this so far as paraffin is concerned, where we have regard to the need to maintain the differential between paraffin and the other middle distillates. The points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, are matters which we will obviously take into account and I make public the assurance which I have just given.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.35 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.3]
Clause 1, page 1, leave out lines 21 to 23.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lord, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. As Clause 1 now contains all the qualifications as to the making of orders, including those that were formerly contained in Clause 3(2) and (3), this subsection is no longer required.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.4]
Clause 2, page 2, line 1, leave out 'Subject to section 3 below,' and inset 'When an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force'
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4. This Amendment and Amendment No. 7 are consequential on the new provisions in Clause 1, incorporating the qualifications as to the making of orders at present contained in Clause 3(2) and (3). As Clause 3(2) will no longer contain a restriction on the making of directions when an Order in Council is not in force, it is necessary to make a direct reference to this restriction in Clause 2 itself. My Lords, I beg to move this drafting Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos.5 and 6.]
Clause 3, page 3, line 4, leave out 'exist, or are' and insert exists, or is'
Clause 3, page 3, line 5, leave out emergency conditions making' and insert 'an actual or threatened emergency affecting fuel or electricity supplies which makes'
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.7]
Clause 3, page 3, leave out lines 11 to 24.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos.8 and 9]
Clause 3, page 3, line 25, leave out from beginning to 'shall' and insert—

(4)An Order in Council under subsection (1)above if made by virtue of paragraph (b)of the subsection' line 34, leave out' The Order' and insert An Order in Council under subsection (1)'

Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.8 and 9.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.10]
Clause 5, page 4, line 38, leave out from beginning to 'are' in line 1 on page 5 and insert—
'(1)The Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976 does not apply to an agreement satisfying the following conditions, namely—

(a)it is in writing and made between two or more persons carrying on business in the production or supply of petroleum and—

(i)is made by them with the Secretary of State and each other, and

(ii)contains a power for the Secretary of State to terminate it on the ground that its continuance is no longer expedient in the national interest;

(b)no such restrictions are accepted under it as would (apart from this subsection) make it subject to registration under the 1976 Act, other than restrictions—

(i)in respect of the matters mentioned in section 6(1)(a)to (c)of the Act (regulations of prices and terms and conditions of sale), and

(ii)relating only to petroleum;

(c)it is so expressed that restrictions under it in respect of those matters are operative when, and only when, there is for the time being in force an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act.

(1A)Without prejudice to the foregoing, an agreement made at a time when there is in force such an Order in Council and satisfying the conditions set out below, is exempt from

785
registration under the 1976 Act (subject to this section) while the Order is in force.
(2)The conditions for exemption under subsection (1A) above'.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. As a result of representations made in another place and made by the oil industry, the Government examined the possibility of widening the exemptions under Clause 5 during an emergency—that is, when an Order in Council under Clause 3 is in force—to include agreements regulating price and terms and conditions of sale falling under Section 6(1)(a) to (c) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. This Amendment meets the arguments put to the Government, and I have pleasure in commending it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.11–13]
Clause 5, page 5, line 25, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1A) above'
Clause 5, page 5, line 28, leave out 'this section' and insert subsection (1A)'
Clause 5, page 5, line 34, leave out 'this section' and insert subsection (1A)'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 en bloc.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.14]
Clause 5, page 6, line 3, at end insert 'and section 35 of that Act (failure to register within time required) shall apply accordingly'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. Noble Lords will note that Clause 5(5) deals with agreements which cease to be exempt under the clause but which continue in force and become subject to the provisions of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. This Amendment applies to this subsection the provisions as to the consequences of failure to register which apply to agreements which
786
are not registered within the times specified in that Act. I hope that the House will accept this minor Amendment.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.15]
Page 7, line 29, leave out from 'station' to end of line 31 and insert 'the Secretary of State may direct any of those Boards and, in respect of a station of a capacity of 100 megawatts or more, he may direct any such person as is referred to in subsection (1)(b)'
9.40 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. Your Lordships will perhaps recollect that the object of Clause 7 is to enable the Government to implement in Great Britain an EEC Council Directive—No. 75/339—which requires Member States to maintain minimum stocks of fossil fuel at thermal power stations. Those stocks must be sufficient to secure the continuation of electricity supplies for at least 30 days. Your Lordships will recall that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, drew attention at Committee stage to the right under the Directive to determine the quantities of fuel to be stocked at each power station so long as the level of stocks overall is sufficient to secure the continuation of electricity supplies for at least 30 days.
This Amendment, by making the restriction to generating stations of 100mW or more apply only in relation to private generating stations—that is to say, those operated by persons of the kind described in Clause 7(1)(b)—will enable directions to be given to the CEGB which will reflect the provisions of the Directive. In fact, I am advised that the stocks at present held by the CEGB exceed those which the Directive requires. I commend the Amendment to your Lordships.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.16 to 19.]
After Clause 7 insert the following new clause:—
Supply of offshore natural gas.
.—(1) No person other than the British Gas Corporation shall, except with the consent of the British Gas Corporation, supply offshore natural gas through pipes to premises in Great Britain for non-industrial purposes.
(2) The Secretary of State's consent is required for offshore natural gas to be supplied through pipes to premises in Great Britain for industrial purposes, except—

(a) supply by or to the British Gas Corporation or

(b) supply provided by one company to another, where they are associated companies in the same group.

(3) Consent is not to be given under subsection (2) to any supply of gas for industrial fuel purposes unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the British Gas Corporation have been given an opportunity of purchasing the gas at a reasonable price or have made known, in writing, that they do not require such an opportunity.
(4) In section 29 of the Gas Act 1972 (restrictions on supply of gas otherwise than by the British Gas Corporation, etc.), at the end of subsection (11) there shall be added the following words—
"except gas derived from offshore crude otherwise than as a by-product of crude stabilisation ".
In this subsection—

(a) "offshore crude" means crude liquid petroleum got in pursuance of a licence under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 as applied by section 1(3) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964; and

(b) "crude stabilisation" means the treating of offshore crude to enable it to be safely stored or transported."

After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:—
Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas.
.—(1) The Secretary of State's consent is required for offshore natural gas to be used in Great Britain, except—

(a) use by, or of a supply provided by, the British Gas Corporation; or

(b) use of a supply provided by any other person, so long as there is consent to the supply under section (Supply of offshore natural gas) above; or

(c) use of a supply provided otherwise than through pipes; or

(d) use to provide heat or energy in connection with the purification, fractionation or movement (by pipe-line or otherwise) of offshore natural gas.

(2) The Secretary of State shall give his consent under subsection (1) to use by the licensees or a company associated with them in the same group for industrial purposes which are not industrial fuel purposes and which do not include the use of the gas for a process of crude stabilisation or in connection with the movement of offshore crude by pipe-line or otherwise.
(3) Consent under subsection (1) is not to be given to any use of gas for industrial fuel purposes, except use by the licensees or a company associated with them in the same group, unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the British Gas Corporation have been given an opportunity of purchasing the gas at a a reasonable price or have made known, in writing, that they do not require such an opportunity.
(4) The provisions of subsections (2) and (3) as to the use of gas by the licensees or a company associated with them in the same group do not apply—

(a) to gas acquired by the licensees in pursuance of an agreement for the sale of the gas under which the price is payable after the gas is won and saved; or

(b) to gas acquired by an associated company otherwise than from the licensees either directly or in circumstances such that all the intermediaries were other companies associated in the same group.

(5) The Secretary of State's consent is required for offshore natural gas to be subjected in Great Britain to any process of liquefaction which results in the production of liquid methane or ethane except such small quantities of liquid methane or ethane as may be produced in the course of providing supply to the British Gas Corporation or, with consent under section (Supply of Offshore natural gas) above, to any other person.
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:—
Supplementary provisions as to consents.
.—(1) The Secretary of State's consent under section (Supply of offshore natural gas) or section (Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas) may be given either with reference to particular cases or by means of orders of general application.
2 A specific consent given to any person under either of those sections (that is to say, a consent given to him otherwise than by an order of general application) is irrevocable and may be given for a specified period or indefinitely.
(3) Where consent under those sections has been given by an order of general application, any person who proposes to undertake a supply, use or process of liquefaction which is covered by that general consent may notify the Secretary of State of his proposal (in the manner specified by the order), whereupon sub-section (2) above applies as if specific consent either unlimited in duration or, if the order so provides, for the period there specified had been given to him for that supply use or process of liquefaction.
(4) The Secretary of State's consent when given under section (Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas)(2) may in any case be made subject to the following conditions only, that is to say—

(a) such conditions as appear to him necessary for securing the continued availability for industrial or agricultural purposes of supplies of any products which the gas is used to produce;

(b) conditions requiring the provision of information as to the origin and use of the gas.

(5) Otherwise, the consent of the Secretary of State or of the British Gas Corporation under section (Supply of offshore natural gas) or section (Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas) may in any case be made subject to conditions which may, in particular, be framed by reference to the description or origin of the gas, or the quantities to be supplied, used or disposed of, or the manner of supply or use.
(6) References in section (Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas)(1) and (5) to consent under section (Supply of offshore natural gas) include compliance with any conditions subject to which that consent was given.
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:—
Interpretation of foregoing provisions
.—(1) In sections (Supply of offshore natural gas) (Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas) and (Supplementary provisions as to consents) and this section—

(a) "offshore natural gas" means natural gas won under the authority of licences under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934, as applied by section 1(3) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964, but does not include gas derived from offshore crude otherwise than as a by-product of crude stabilisation;

(b) in relation to offshore natural gas, "the licensees" are those who won it under such authority;

(c) "offshore crude" means crude liquid petroleum won under such authority; and

(d) "crude stabilisation" means the treating of offshore crude to enable it to be safely stored or transported.

(2) In sections (Supply of offshore natural gas), (Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas) and (Supplementary provisions as to consents) above and this section references to supply or use for industrial purposes are to supply or use for the purposes of any of the activities described in any of the minimum list headings in Orders II to XIX (inclusive) and XXI of the standard Industrial Classification.
(3) Industrial fuel purposes are industrial purposes which consist of or include the use of gas as a fuel; and for the purpose of determining whether any industrial purposes are industrial fuel purposes the use of any gas or liquid derived otherwise than as a by-product from the gas in question shall be treated as the use of that gas.
(4) The use of gas to provide heat or energy is not use for industrial fuel purposes if it is—

(a) for a process in which the gas is used otherwise than as a fuel;

(b) where such a process is one of a series, for any further process in the same series other than a process in which a bulk product is converted into manufactured articles;

(c) for a process of crude stabilisation;

(d) for a process of purification or fractionation of offshore natural gas;

(e) in connection with the movement of offshore crude or offshore natural gas by pipe-line or otherwise,
and supply for any such use shall not be treated as supply for industrial fuel purposes.

(5) Any question whether the purposes for which gas is to be supplied or used are industrial
790
purposes or industrial fuel purposes, shall be determined by the Secretary of State.
(6) For the purposes of sections (Supply of offshore natural gas), (Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas) and (Supplementary provisions as to consents) companies are associated together in the same group if one is a subsidiary of the other or both are subsidiaries of a third ("subsidiary" having the same meaning as in the Companies Act 1948).
Lord STRABOLG1: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 inclusive. Noble Lords will have observed that the gas provisions of the Bill have now been considerably modified. This was considered necessary as a result of cogent criticisms made by noble Lords and later in another place. Amendments were clearly needed: one to give effect to a pledge made by the Government to noble Lords; another to introduce a non-controversial rationalisation concerning supplies of gas for non-industrial purposes; and some representing agreed compromises between the provisions of the Bill as originally introduced and the changes made by this House in the very useful debates that we had. So the clause was split to deal with the four main topics in turn.
Starting with subsection (1) of the new clause in Amendment No. 16, hitherto, under the Continental Shelf Act, no one other than British Gas has been allowed to supply natural gas for non-industrial purposes. Supplies of propane and butane refined from oil are made now with the consent of British Gas under the Gas Act. In future those gases may be obtained straight from the North Sea and are therefore subject to this Bill. It seems sensible, therefore, to avoid discrimination by providing that, with the British Gas Corporation's consent, natural gas also can be supplied through pipes in Great Britain for non-industrial purposes. Amendment No. 18 permits the Corporation to attach conditions to such supplies, just as it can under the Gas Act. To remove doubt as to what arc non-industrial purposes, we found it best to define the converse by making use, in Amendment No. 19, of the Standard Industrial Classification with which industry is familiar. If in particular cases doubt still remains, the Secretary of State is to determine it.
Amendment No. 17 deals with the use of gas and it contains the most important compromise change in the gas clauses.

791
The Bill had originally sought to make discretionary consents both for the supply and use of gas for non-fuel purposes. The Bill was amended here on Third Reading to make both kinds of consent mandatory. There was a conflict. On the one hand, the Government require powers to ensure that gas can be steered into those uses where it gives greatest value to the nation. On the other hand, there is a need to provide assurance to those who commit very large investments to the production and use of gas. After discussions with the oil and petrochemical industries and the Opposition in another place, the Government considered that there was a particular need to protect those whose main objective in venturing into our Continental Shelf was to secure safe sources for their petrochemical feedstock. This, together with the assurances already given in this place, provided the basis for a compromise. Consents are to be mandatory for non-fuel use by licensees of the gas which they themselves have won. Others wanting to use offshore gas for petrochemical purposes have the assurances given here and in another place that consents will be given for at least 10 years in the case of methane, and for at least 20 years for ethane, propane and butane.
Providing security of investment is also the main motivation behind subsections (2) and (3) of Amendment 18. The Bill provides that consents will be specific to any person, or of general application. Changed circumstances, unforeseeable when a general consent is given, may require it to be revoked, but this could adversely affect companies who have already committed investment on the strength of the consent. Subsection (3) of Amendment 18 provides that those notifying the Secretary of State that they propose operating under a general consent will be regarded as having a specific consent if that general consent is revoked. This provision honours a pledge made by my noble friend Lord Shepherd to this House.
The final substantial change concerns the control over liquefaction. As originally drafted, the Bill sought to require the Secretary of State's consent to the liquefaction of all kinds of offshore gas. As it came out of this House, consent was required for the liquefaction of methane only. Liquefaction uses energy, as your
792
Lordships are aware, but the heavier gas was normally sold in liquid form, and may become liquid almost by accident. I hope noble Lords will agree that the proper dividing line here is between ethane and methane, which require a considerable use of energy to liquefy, and propane and butane which require little or none.
My Lords, I submit that the changes brought about by the four new clauses in Amendments 16 to 19 are not controversial and should be accepted. I hope your Lordships will agree that they go a good way to meeting the very reasonable and useful suggestions which were made by your Lordships during the earlier stages of this Bill. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
9.47 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Long, who is regrettably detained by an unavoidable engagement, I should like to address myself to Commons Amendments Nos. 16 to 19. I regret that my remarks will overlap Amendment No. 26, but perhaps some of my arguments apply.
We began the mammoth exercise in this House of almost entirely re-writing what have generally become known as the gas clauses. Looking at the list of Amendments which have come to us from the Commons it might appear as though all the changes have been made there, but this is not the case. Many of the improvements made in this House have been accepted and further concessions were made by the Government in the Commons. Fortunately, the Government came to the conclusion that the clauses ought to be redrafted. The original Clause 8 is to be replaced by the four new clauses on the Amendment list. Clause 9 has been substantially amended and you will recall that the original Clause 10 was shown to be so unworkable that the Government withdrew it entirely on Third Reading in this House. These clauses will replace Section 9 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964 and modify Schedule 6 to the Gas Act 1972. The Government's contention was that these existing powers were

793
inadequate for them to control the use of gas and in particular to prevent its wasteful use or its export, thereby depriving the United Kingdom of its full potential value as a premium fuel or feedstock.
Opposition and industry, while agreeing that the objective of preventing wasteful use or uncontrolled export is proper, maintained that the extension of discretionary controls over the use of gas is unnecessary and likely to be counterproductive rather than provide the incentive or the means for industry to use the gas where its value can be fully realised. Some of the proposed constraints were almost impossible to implement in practice and would have resulted in great inconvenience to industry and added costs without providing compensating benefits to Government or the nation.
My Lords, throughout the many debates on these clauses in both Houses, the Opposition have sought to be practical and constructive in their approach, and I hope we have been. We have tried to remove, and largely succeeded in removing from the Bill, the measures which would have imposed additional burdens on industry without any compensating benefits. At this stage, it is right to acknowledge that the Government have been most cooperative and met the Opposition's attempts to improve the legislation by equally practical measures. Here I join with my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal in paying sincere tribute to the efforts of all Government Ministers involved and to the permanent officials of the Department of Energy who have worked hard to find practical solutions which are now embodied in the Commons Amendments. This has been a very substantial task.
In particular it is gratifying that the liquefaction of propane and butane will not need consent, that at least the concept of mandatory consent for non-fuel own use is accepted (both in Amendment No. 17) and that satisfactory assurances have been given over the supply and use of ethane, propane and butane for petrochemical purposes, all key issues which were suggested in the debates in this House and on which Amendments were carried.
However, there remain a number of serious reservations about the overall effects of this part of the Bill. In the
794
first place, it is highly undesirable for Government to take sweeping powers to control the supply and use of gas, in particular to remove the right of industry to use off-shore gas for non-fuel use. It is welcome that the Government have conceded that anyone discovering and producing gas should have automatic consent to use the gas for his own non-fuel purposes, but it would have been more so (accepting the powers Government will now have to prevent "wasteful use") to have retained the automatic right for a manufacturer to use any gas for these value-adding activities. Never was the need greater to encourage such uses which create wealth and provide jobs in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the Opposition questions the measures in the Bill which extend the powers of the British Gas Corporation and increase even further its favoured purchasing position. British Gas should compete on equal terms for supplies of gas. The extension of its buying powers can only deflect supplies from premium uses in industry and delay the recovery of industry on which, all sides agree, the future prosperity of the United Kingdom depends.
Finally, the point of specific detail where Opposition and industry retain an immediate concern is the provision in the Bill in one of the clauses (Amendment 18(5)) whereby the Secretary of State or the British Gas Corporation can impose virtually any conditions they think fit to the consent procedure, other than use of own gas for own non-fuel purposes. This matter was raised during Report in the Commons last week, when the Minister assured the House that only "relevant" conditions would be imposed. The assurance was welcome, but the precise meaning and implication of the word "relevant" remain somewhat obscure.
With these reservations made, it would be churlish of me not to end my remarks on these clauses by acknowledging again that the Government have listened carefully to all the arguments put forward against their original proposals and responded so constructively to most of them, with the result that a largely satisfactory compromise has been achieved over this part of the Bill. My Lords, I regret that this statement has been somewhat lengthy,

795
but your Lordships have been extremely patient with me.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.20.]
Leave out Clause 8.
9.55 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. This is a drafting consequential Amendment.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.21–24.]
Clause 9, page 10, line 31, leave out 'subsections (3) and (4)' and insert subsection (3)'.
Clause 9, page 10, line 34, leave out 'except in an oil refinery '.
Clause 9, page 10, line 40, leave out from section' to end of line 3 on page 11 and insert—

'(a) if it is permitted under the terms of a production licence granted under United Kingdom legislation;

(b) if it is of refinery tail gas produced in refining crude liquid petroleum (and "refining" here does not include the treatment of crude for the sole purpose of enabling it to be safely stored or transported);

(c) if it is necessary in connection with the start-up or shut-down of manufacturing plant; or

(d) if it is necessary in the interests of the safety of such plant, or

(e) if it is necessary in order to comply with a requirement imposed by or under any enactment.'

Page 11, line 3, at end insert—
'() In this section "manufacturing plant" means plant used for any of the activities referred to in any of the minimum list headings in Orders III to XIX (inclusive) of the Standard Industrial Classification.'
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 21 to 24 en bloc. The first two Amendments are paving Amendments to 23; Amendment No. 24 contains a definition and is consequential to Amendment No. 23. Amendment 23 brings together the exceptions when disposal of gas by flaring does not require
796
a consent and incorporates three straightforward changes which are acceptable to the oil and petrochemical industries. The first limits the exception of flaring in an oil refinery to a particular process, the flaring of tail gas.
The second excepts flaring in connection with the start up or shut down or operational safety of manufacturing plant instead of industrial plant—the latter the Government feel, is too wide a term. The third is a new exception for flaring necessary to comply with a requirement under other legislation, such as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Kirkhill.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.25 and 26.]
Clause 9, page 11, line 7, after 'conditions' insert 'which may, in particular, be'
Clause 9, page 11, line 9, leave out or other-wise howsoever'.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 25 and 26. These Amendments allow conditions to be attached to the consents for the flaring of natural gas to maintain consistency with the corresponding provision in subsection (5) of the new clause in Amendment 18. Amendment No. 26 removes the words "or otherwise howsoever" so much criticised both by noble Lords opposite and some honourable Members in another place. Amendment No. 25 alters the subsection to allow the Secretary of State to attach conditions
"which may, in particular, be framed by reference to the description or origin of the gas, or the quantities to be disposed of."
This means that other conditions, apart from those specified, may still be attached to consents for flaring or releasing unignited gas. There are inherent limitations to conditions which may be attached to statutory consents: they must be consistent with the objects of the statutory provisions permitting their imposition".
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Kirkhill.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No.27.]
Clause 11, page 12, line 17, at end insert—
(d) section 11 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27. The effect of this Amendment is to make it clear that the provisions of Clause 11 do not affect the provisions of Section 11 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. As noble Lords will be aware, this Bill, which contains provisions relating to the production of heat and electricity by local authorities, is expected to receive Royal Assent in the near future. It is therefore necessary that it now be added to the list contained in subsection (6), of Acts which are not affected by the provisions of Clause 11.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.28.]
Clause 12, page 12, line 30, leave out lines 30 to 33 and insert—
'(a) for requiring manufacturers or importers of cars to carry out officially approved tests, or to arrange for such tests to be carried out (by making available a car to officers of the Secretary of State's department for that purpose, or otherwise);'
10 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 28. This is essentially a drafting Amendment intended to clarify the way in which the scheme will normally operate. In the great majority of cases cars will be tested by the manufacturer or importer, and only rarely should it be necessary for the Department of Energy to arrange to carry out any testing. Nevertheless, it seems desirable to have express power to provide in an order under the clause that if in particular circumstances the tests are to be carried out by the Department the manufacturer or importer has a duty to
798
make a suitable vehicle available for the purpose.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to Amendments Nos. 28, 29 and 30 as being all related. At the same time I express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having conducted further consultations with the industry with regard to this clause, the net result of which is a much more modified clause than we had previously. I still have to express my disappointment that it was still found necessary to include in a Bill of this kind the testing of motor cars. The Bill expressly sets out to conserve energy, and there is nothing whatsoever within this clause that is going to make any contribution to that object. Were it not for the almost impossible programme of legislation that has now built up I would certainly have been tempted to move an Amendment to remove this clause. There can only be one reason for its inclusion and that is that of international obligations, and those obligations could be met by inclusion in another Bill.
The testing of motor vehicles, the imposition which these regulations will put upon the motor industry, is more in the nature of consumer events. That is the kind of Bill in which it should be included, and it could have been debated in that concept. Even re-written—and I have expressed my gratitude for the re-writing—the clause is heavy, clumsy and incomplete. Surely, if we are going to introduce a new piece of legislation covering an industry and those people engaged in the industry, it is beholden upon the Government to set down those people whom it will affect. If one looks at the last Amendment, No. 30, we have this extraordinary expression in page 13, line 46,
"(b)'specified' means specified by such orders; and the orders may specify the cases in which a car is to be regarded as a new car and those in which a person is, or is not, regarded as one who deals in new cars".
Really the draftsmen, if it is the draftsmen's reponsibility, and I suppose it is the Government's responsibility, should have by now worked out what is a new

799
motor car. It does not really change. Having once decided what is a new motor car, that remains almost for all time. Having decided what kind of person deals in new cars that also stays.
At the present moment there are a great number of people in the industry who are now going to have to wait for an order to set down whether they are to be included or not included. That seems to me an extraordinarily clumsy piece of drafting. The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, who first introduced this Bill into your Lordships' House, gave his views as to the worthwhileness of the "Save it" campaign. I certainly do not think that since March of this year, when the Bill was introduced, this particular clause has done anything to contribute to a saving campaign. Neither do I think that the campaign has done anything to save fuel used in motor cars, because I understand that in the period ended in September gasoline usage has moved up just over 5 per cent. over the previous year. Somewhere, I have not yet found out where, there is another underlying reason for this clause. No doubt in the fullness of time it will be revealed to us.
In conclusion, I wish to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for having continued the consultations with the industry. I am sorry that the original consultations were so abortive and that
800
we had to go through all this performance through three stages of the Bill to get something which the industry has now found tolerably acceptable. I can only hope that the Government's dealings with the motor industry in terms of consultation will have provided a lesson which has been learnt, and that those consultations for the future will be more meaningful. I cannot find anything else to commend these Amendments. The disappointment to me is that the clause is in the Bill at all.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I am always grateful for even a minor commendation from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, and I thank him. I think that he might acknowledge that the Government have been flexible and have gone some way to meet a number of points which the noble Lord and others—but frequently the noble Lord—made in earlier debates. I want to make one particular point; namely, that certainly one of the needs for the clause is the international obligations which may be imposed upon the Government, and mention has just been made of that. I have been advised just now that with regard to the comment about the imprecise definition as it relates to new cars, this concept has been reserved for an order to allow flexibility and, frankly, to enable trade opinion to be sounded out.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.29–30.]
Clause 12, page 13, leave out lines 3 to 22 and insert—

'(a) no person shall, in the course of a business, deal in or offer for sale new cars of that class or description unless the relevant official tests have been carried out;

(b) every person who issues material to the general public with a view to promoting sales of cars of that class or description (especially advertisements, technical specifications, sales brochures and the like) shall, if the material contains any statement about fuel consumption, include specified information as to the results of the relevant official tests;

(c) every manufacturer or, in the case of imported cars, importer of cars of that class or description shall secure that any manual or handbook compiled with a view to a copy of it being issued to any first purchaser of such a car includes specified information as to the results of the relevant official tests;

(d) every person who, in the course of a business, deals in or offers for sale new cars of that class or description shall make available for inspection by his customers at any place where he causes such cars to be offered for sale, or regularly transacts business with customers relating to the sale of such cars, specified information as to the results of officially approved tests on all cars which have been subjected to the tests, including not only cars which he deals in or offers for sale, but also those which he does not; and

(e) no person shall, with a view to promoting the sale of new cars of that class or description, display such a car on premises where he carries on a business unless the car has affixed to it, so as to be clearly visible to those to whom the car is displayed a label in specified form containing specified information including—

(i) the results of the relevant official tests; and

(ii) the fact that the results of officially approved tests on other cars are available for inspection by customers.'

Clause 12, page 13, line 46, leave out from 'section' to end of line 47 and insert—

'(a) "relevant official tests", in relation to any car, means the officially approved tests carried out, or, as the case may be, required to be carried out (pursuant to orders under this section) on cars of that class or description; and

(b) "specified" means specified by such orders;

and the orders may specify the cases in which a car is to be regarded as a new car and those in which a person is, or is not, regarded as one who deals in new cars.'
10.8 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons
802
in their Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 en bloc. The primary purpose of these Amendments to Clause 12(3) and 12(7) is to give effect to the decisions taken about the display of information in car showrooms following the further discussions with the trade promised to the House during discussion on an Amendment at Report stage. When the Bill was considered at Report stage in your Lordships' House objections were raised to the requirement in this clause that car dealers should post up details of the fuel consumption of all cars which had been tested, including those sold by their competitors. The Government undertook to discuss the matter further with the trade, and paragraphs (d) and (e) of Amendment No. 29 which amends subsection (3) of the clause, reflect the outcome. The requirement for a poster has been dropped, and we propose instead that each new car displayed should carry a label showing the official test results for that model. The label would also state that the full list of fuel consumption figures for all models which had been tested was available for inspection on the dealer's premises.
Amendment No. 29 also covers a number of other points. Paragraph (a) puts a clear responsibility on the manufacturer or importer of a car to make sure that tests are carried out by the date specified in the order. A minor Amendment has been made to paragraph (c) to put the obligation on the manufacturer or importer of a car to ensure that handbooks and owner's manuals contain the official tests results. It is now made clear throughout the text that the scheme applies only to new cars and to new car dealers. The man who deals exclusively in used cars will have no new duties imposed on him. Minor drafting Amendments have also been made to make it clearer, one hopes, that the test results to be published relate to models of car rather than to individual specimens. I beg to move.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, prompts me to say just one further word

803
with regard to what he has just said. I do not think I could do better than copy the words of my noble friend Lord Sandys, when he said that it would be churlish of him, as it is of me, not to be grateful for these alterations which have been incorporated in the Amendments, which are as a direct result of the exchanges that the noble Lord and I had in those earlier stages. The industry is, of course, immensely grateful to the Government for that.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 14, page 14, line 9, leave out '(8(6)' and insert 'Supplementary provisions as to consents)'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31. This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 18.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 15, page 15, line 11, leave out '8' and insert '(Supply of offshore natural gas), (Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas)'
Clause 15, page 15, line 34, leave out '8' and insert '(Supply of offshore natural gas), (Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas)'
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 en bloc. These Amendments are consequential upon Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Straholgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 16, page 16, line 15, at end insert—
(b) section 11(1) or (2); or'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34. This Amendment corrects a minor anomaly in the penalties applicable to the
804
various possible offences against Clause 11 and directions given under it.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Straholgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
Clause 18, page 17, line 22, leave out 'and'
Clause 18, page 17, line 22, at end insert—
'"Standard Industrial Classification" has', the meaning assigned to it by section 6(2) of the Industry Act 1972'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 en bloc. Amendment No. 35 is a paving Amendment. Amendment No. 36 defines the Standard Industrial Classification mentioned in Amendments 19 and 24 by reference to the definition in the Industry Act 1972.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 18, page 17, line 25, at end insert—
'; and "United Kingdom legislation" includes any enactment for the time being in force in any part of the United Kingdom.'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. This Amendment merely makes it clear that the expression "United Kingdom legislation" does not mean only legislation of this Parliament but also includes enactments of other legislatures in the United Kingdom.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 18, page 17, line 26, leave out subsection (2).
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. This is consequential to Amendment No. 19. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 20, page 18, line 6, after 'appointed' insert for different provisions and '.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 39. This is purely a drafting Amendment to make it abundantly clear that different provisions of the Bill may come into force on different days. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
Clause 20, page 18, line 7, leave out '8' and insert—
'(Supply of offshore natural gas), (Use and liquefaction of offshore natural gas), (Supplementary provisions as to consents), (Interpretation of foregoing provisions),'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 40. This Amendment is consequential upon Amendments Nos. 16 to 19 inclusive. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.41.]
Schedule 1, page 19, line 32, at end insert—
' 4.—(1) A person charged under section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 with the offence of using, or causing or permitting the use, of a motor vehicle so as to contravene that section (driving uninsured) may prove as a defence that the vehicle was being used by authority of the Secretary of State under section 4(2) of this Act and that—

(a) it was at the material time the subject of insurance or security complying with Part VI of the 1972 Act; and

(b) pursuant to arrangements made by or with the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 4(2), the insurance or security is treated as extending to its use on that occasion.

(2) A person charged under section 162 or 166 of the Road Traffic Act 1972 with an offence of failing to produce the relevant certificate of insurance or certificate of security within the meaning of Part VI of that Act may prove as a defence that the vehicle was being used by authority of the Secretary of State under section 4(2) of this Act and that—

(a) he produced a certificate of insurance or certificate of security complying with Part VI of that Act; and

806

(b) pursuant to arrangements made by or with the Secretary of State for the purposes of section 4(2), the insurance or security to which the certificate relates is treated as extending to the use in question '.

Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41. This Amendment, which was introduced by the Government, relates to a point raised by my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek in our earlier discussions on this Bill. It concerns the insurance position of a person using a private car to carry passengers on a cost-sharing basis under an authority granted by the Secretary of State under Clause 4(2). Cost-sharing might be held to invalidate a private car insurance policy, which normally excludes use for hire.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I shall be brief at this time of night. I am grateful to the Government for inserting this. It has removed what I considered to be an anomaly and consequently I am certain it will improve the Bill. From both sides of the House, I am sure we are grateful to the Government.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.42.]
Schedule 2, page 20, line 44, at end insert' at all reasonable hours and'.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42. This Government Amendment was drafted in response to an Amendment tabled by the Opposition in another place. The Government have always intended that the power of access in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 would be exercised "at reasonable hours ". I hope your Lordships will welcome the reflection of that intention on the face of the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that Amendment which goes quite a long way towards meeting a

807
point which was raised earlier. In so doing, may I mention that it would have been even more satisfactory if this provision could have been applied also to sub-paragraph (1)(a). However, we are thankful for what we can get.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.43.]
Page 21, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
' (2) The powers of this paragraph are not exercisable—

(a) for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 15 of this Act;

(b) except when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force, for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 1(1).'

Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. With the permission of the House, I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 46. These Amendments remove from the Bill powers of access and right of entry with warrant as they relate to Clause 12. As my noble friend Lord Shepherd indicated at Report stage and in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the Government have no wish to retain these powers unnecessarily. So far as fuel consumption testing is concerned, I am convinced that such stringent enforcement powers are not required. These Amendments would put orders under Clause 12 in the same position as orders under Clause 1(1) introducing long-term energy conservation measures.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I can hardly wait to celebrate the Government voluntarily giving up powers of this kind. I congratulate them.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.44 and 45.]
Page 21, leave out lines 14 to 20 and insert—
'(b) the circumstances specified in sub-paragraph (1A) or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (1B) below are present,'.
Page 21, line 23, at end insert—
808
'(1A) If no Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is for the time being in force the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued are that either—

(a) admission to the premises has been refused after, if the case is not one of urgency, not less than seven days' notice of the intention to enter had been given to the occupier; or

(b) application for admission would defeat the object of the entry or the premises are unoccupied.

(1B) If such an Order in Council is for the time being in force the circumstances in which a warrant may be issued are that either—

(a) admission to the premises has been refused, or a refusal is apprehended, and notice of intention to apply for a warrant has been given to the occupier; or

(b) application for admission would defeat the object of the entry, or the case is one of urgency, or the premises are unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent.'.

Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 44 and 45 en bloc. I should like to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 47. These Government Amendments place certain restrictions on the right of entry with a warrant provided by paragraphs 4 and 5(3) of Schedule 2, during times when there is no "emergency" Order in Council in force under Clause 3. The Government consider that some provision for a right of entry with a warrant is necessary during non-emergency times, but the restrictions proposed in the Amendments, which meet points made by the Opposition in another place, would not hinder the proper enforcement of non-emergency measures. The Government have therefore put forward these Amendments and I hope that they will be welcomed by noble Lords.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Kirkhill.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.46 and 47.]
Schedule 2, page 21, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (2) and insert—
'(2) A warrant under this paragraph—

(a) is not to be issued authorising entry for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 15 of this Act;

(b) except when an Order in Council under section 3 of this Act is in force, is not to be issued authorising entry for the purpose only of securing compliance with orders under section 1(1).'.

Page 22, line 11, leave out 'paragraph 4(1)(b)' and insert 'paragraph 4(1A) or, as the case may be, (1B)'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 en bloc. These are formal.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.48.]
Schedule 4, page 24, line 41, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 4 on page 25.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48. On this motion I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 53A, 54 and 55. Amendments Nos. 48 and 55 are paving Amendments. These Amendments, remove any uncertainty as to what offence may be committed, what maximum penalties for offences are applicable and what powers of enforcement are available in respect of these orders. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.49.]
Schedule 4, page 25, leave out lines 6 to 13.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 53B. These Amendments take account of the fact that since this Bill was last before your Lordships' House, there have been changes in the Orders listed in Part III of Schedule 4. The Government wish to retain in force certain Orders made under the powers in the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 which is to be repealed when this Bill becomes law. The list of Orders in the Bill includes the Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) Order 1973 and three Amendment Orders, all of which were revoked on 1st August this year and replaced by the Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) Order 1976, SI 1976/1204. These Amendments therefore substitute the new Order SI 1976/1204 for those that have been
revoked.
Moved, that the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment No. 49.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos.50 and 51.]
Schedule 4, page 25, leave out lines 14 to 15.
Schedule 4, page 25, leave out lines 18 to 20.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 en bloc. During the Report stage of this Bill in your Lordships' House, my noble friend Lord Shepherd said in relation to conservation—and here I quote:
"If there is a need to make an Order it is because a specific problem has not yielded to other treatment.".
In this case the Government believe a problem which did create a need for an Order has now yielded to other treatment. The Order is no longer needed as we have negotiated four voluntary codes which are in the final stages of agreement. These will offer a choice of different periods of the day during which advertisers can opt to light up electrical signs, poster displays or display lighting. Amendments Nos. 50 and 51 were moved and accepted at Report stage in another place, and I hope that these Amendments will also be acceptable to your Lordships.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.52.]
Schedule 4, page 25, leave out lines 24 to 26.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. This is formal.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.53.]
Schedule 4, page 25, line 26, at end insert—
' S.I. 1976/1204 The Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) Order 1976.'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53. I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 53B. These are both formal Amendments which have already been

811
dealt with in the amendments in the earlier part.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 53.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI moved, as an Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 53:
Line 3, at end insert ("S.I. 1976/1840 The Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) (Amendment) Order 1976.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment to the Commons Amendment.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[Nos.53A, 54 and 55]
Page 25, line 26, at end insert—
'The above orders are to be treated for the purposes of this Act as if they had been made under section 1(1) or (as the case may be) section 1(2) of this Act, and references in this Act to powers and orders under it, and similar references, are to be construed accordingly where the context permits.'
page 25, line 30, at end insert—
' The Order in Council above is to be treated for the purposes of this Act as if it had been made under section 4(3) of this Act, and references in this Act to powers and orders under it, and similar references, are to be construed accordingly where the context permits.'
page 25, line 39, leave out 'The above orders' and insert 'the orders set out in this Part'.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. S5LV0317P0.xml53A, 54 and 55 en bloc. These are formal Amendments and I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMPANIES (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
10.27 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the CommonsAmendments be now considered.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (130) as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1–4]
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out ("and cause to be printed").
Page 2, line 7, leave out ("and cause to be printed").
page 2, line 24, leave out ("printed").
page 2, line 29, leave out ("printed").
Lord W1NTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1–4 inclusive, en bloc. Again, with the permission of the House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 20, 21 and 64. When the Bill was first published, a large number of organisations made representations to the Government, objecting to requirements that a company's accounts should be printed. They felt that was an unnecessary imposition, particularly for small companies. The same point was made by Members of this House when the Bill had its Second Reading. The Government made it clear from the beginning that the purpose of the requirement was merely to ensure that the accounts filed with the Registrar of Companies were legible and that the Registrar would accept any of a number of processes for reproducing documents which would result in a document which was suitable both for its use on a public file and for microfilming. However, in view of the concern caused by the word "printed", it was decided to delete the provision since a later clause, No. 25, gave the Secretary of State power to prescribe the acceptable process in more detail in regulations. For this reason, I ask the House to accept these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord LYELL: Lords, I seem to remember raising this point at an earlier stage of our deliberations on this Bill and I remember that various explanations were given, to which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has referred. Since he has mentioned that this matter has

813
been brought forward at the behest of the smaller companies, we can be very grateful for the Government's action in the matter.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 5 to 7]
Clause 2, page 4, line 8, leave out ("December") and insert ("March").
Clause 2, page 4, line 15, leave out ("December") and insert ("March").
Clause 2, page 4, line 21, leave out ("December") and insert ("March").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons, in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 7 en bloc. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, may remember that he moved this Amendment in Committee but at that time it was resisted by the Government. Following further consultation and pressure in another place, the Government have decided to concede this point. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, all I have to say on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches is that we are grateful to the Government for the way in which they have dealt with this matter. This is not a Party matter. I believe it was at the behest of various accountancy bodies, who were very much involved in these matters.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 8 to 10]
Clause 3, page 5, line 13, leave out ("subsections (3) and (4)") and insert ("subsection (3)")
Clause 3, page 5, line 23, after ("above") insert ("(a)")
Clause 3, page 5, line 27, leave out ("(4) A notice under subsection (2) above") and insert ("and (b)")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 8 to 10 en bloc. These are merely drafting Amendments. They provide that subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 3 should become subsection (3)(a) and (3)(b). The two subsections specify circumstances under which a notice under subsection (2)
814
shall not have effect. As the provisions are so closely linked, it would be clearer if they were to be combined. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 11 to 13]
Clause 4, page 7, line 33, leave out ("(a) an amount calculated") and insert ("an amount determined")
Clause 4, page 7, line 34, leave out from ("the") to third ("the") in line 35 and insert ("length of the period between the end of the first-mentioned period and")
Clause 4, page 7, line 37, leave out from ("with") to end of line 46 and insert—
("(4) The amount of the penalty in sub-section (3) above is—

(a) £20 where the period is a period of not more than one month;

(b) £50 where the period is a period of more than one month but not more than three months;

(c) £100 where the period is a period of more than three months but not more than six months;

(d) £200 where the period is a period of more than six months but not more than twelve months; and

(e) £450 where the period is a period of more than twelve months.")

Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to move Amendments 11 to 13 en bloc. The Amendment was introduced to meet the criticism of the heaviness, particularly for small companies, of the civil penalties in Clause 4; the Government have revised them. The amounts for which companies would be liable if they are only a few weeks or months late in filing accounts have been substantially reduced. The maximum penalty of £450 has been retained but this will apply to companies only when they have failed to deliver accounts to the Registrar more than 12 months after the end of the period allowed. If a company has failed to deliver accounts for a further 12 months after the period allowed, it is a very serious matter and one which rightly attracts a heavy penalty. As well as reducing the level of the penalties, fixed steps have been substituted for the daily calculation. This will make the penalties applicable in an individual case easier to calculate and simplify the administration of the penalties by reducing the scope for argument about the amount payable. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we believe that these are an improvement on the scheme in the Bill as printed, and we very much concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has said in respect to what we might call minor breaches, although I am sure that noble Lords will agree that a breach of the law is a breach of the law. Very often matters of this nature can arise in any small commercial undertaking, or there may be a question of gathering in information or delays in the postal services or other such matters. We believe that these are admirable proposals and are very welcome.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.14 to 15]
Clause 7, page 10, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 28 and insert ("The substitution by section 1(9) above of a new definition for the definition of "financial year" in section 455(1) of the Act of 1948 shall not affect the operation of the original definition").
Clause 7, page 10, line 29, leave out from ("period") to end of line 32.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House I should like to move Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 en bloc. This is a highly technical Amendment. Its purpose is to ensure that there is a meaningful definition of the term "financial year" in all circumstances. This Amendment was found to be necessary, as there could otherwise have been circumstances in which the meaning of references to "financial year" would have been uncertain. This is a drafting improvement. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this, but we hope that there will be no clash between the definition "financial year" and "accounting reference period" on which we spent a considerable amount of time at an earlier stage. I see this new term "accounting reference period" in the Bill at various times but we accept this particular aspect of drafting, the
816
"financial year". We hope it fits in at this point adequately. We give that a more guarded welcome.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.16 and 17]
Clause 8, page 11, line 30, leave out ("and printed").
Clause 9, page 12, line 17, leave out ("and cause to be printed").
10.35 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 16 and 17.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments. —(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.18 and 19]
Clause 9, page 12, line 19, leave out ("in such form").
Clause 9, page 12, line 21, after ("modifications") insert ("in such form").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 18 and 19. These drafting Amendments were found to be necessary in order to ensure that oversea companies could be exempted from requirements relating to both the content and the form of accounts. These Amendments ensure that the Secretary of State will have power to prescribe exceptions and modifications in respect of the form as well as the content of the accounts of an oversea company. It corrects a drafting error, and I presume will in due course cease to be relevant so far as the Economic Community is concerned.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.20 and 21]
Clause 9, page 12, line 28, leave out ("printed").
Clause 9, page 12, line 40, leave out ("or cause to be printed").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 20 and 21.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.22 to 26]
Clause 12, page 14, line 40, leave out from ("cause") to end of line 42 and insert ("accounting records to be kept in accordance with the provisions of this section.
(1A) The accounting records shall be sufficient to show and explain the company's transactions.
(1B) The accounting records shall be such as to—

(a) disclose with reasonable accuracy, at any time, the financial position of the company at that time; and

(b) enable the directors to ensure that any balance sheet or profit and loss account prepared by them under section 1 above complies with the requirements of section 149 of the Act of 1948 (balance sheet to give a true and fair view of the company's state of affairs and profit and loss account to give a true and fair view of the company's profit or loss, etc.)").

Page 15, line 8, leave out from first ("of") to second ("of") in line 9 and insert ("stock held by the company at the end of each financial year of the company;

(b) all statements of stocktakings from which any such statement as is mentioned in paragraph (a)above has been or is to be prepared; and

(c) except in the case of goods sold by way of ordinary retail trade, statements").

Page 15, line 12, leave out from ("identified") to end of line 14.
Page 15, line 29, leave out from ("enable") to end of line 33 and insert ("the directors to ensure that any balance sheet or profit and loss account prepared by them under section 1 above complies with the requirements of the said section 149 of the Act of 1948.").
Page 15, line 38, after ("it") insert—

("(a) in the case of a private company, for three years from the date on which they are made; and

(b) in any other case").

Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 26. These are rather weightier Amendments than some of those we discussed earlier. Amendment No. 22 recasts the general requirements as to accounting records in response to points raised by the House on an earlier occasion and in consultations with the accountancy profession and others about the Bill. The new subsections (1A) and (1B) expand and amend the general requirements in subsection (1) in two main
818
respects. First, they make it an express requirement that accounting records should always be kept up to date by requiring that they shall be such as to,
"disclose with reasonable accuracy, at any time, the financial position of the company at that time".
It was already implicit in the clause that the accounting records should be kept up to date but, in view of the importance of this point, the Government accept that an explicit requirement is desirable.
Secondly, the Amendments impose a new requirement that the accounting records should be such as to enable the directors to prepare accounts which comply with the requirements of the Companies Acts and which, in particular, give a true and fair view of the state of the company's affairs. This requirement, together with the provision that the accounting records shall disclose the financial position of the company at any time, replace the provision in the clause as originally drafted that the records shall be sufficient to give a true and fair view of the state of the company's affairs. It was represented to us that, in practice, it was not possible for a true and fair view of the state of the company's affairs to be obtained from the raw data in the accounting records. Such a view could be obtained only from the accounts drawn up on the basis of those records which pulled all the relevant material together. The Government accept the force of this argument and the Amendments redraft the clause accordingly. Is it your Lordships' wish that I go a little further, or shall we discuss the basic point immediately?
Amendment No. 25 is consequential. It brings the wording of subsection 6(b) into line with that of subsection (1) as amended by Amendment No. 22. Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 redraft subsection (3) so as to meet the criticism that the requirement for companies dealing in goods to keep statements of all stocktakings was unduly onerous. They substitute for the requirement that companies dealing in goods should keep all statements of stocktaking the requirement that they should keep the statements of stocktaking on the basis of which the year-end statement of stock is prepared. Amendment No. 26 reduces from six years to three the period for which private companies must preserve accounting records. The six years' requirement

819
will apply to public companies only. On further consideration, it was decided that three years was adequate for private companies. This is also the period for which records have to be kept for VAT purposes. These are technical and complex Amendments. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, being a professional accountant, will understand them better than I do, but I believe that they are sound. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
10.40 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, if I may address myself first of all to Amendment No. 22, we are very grateful for the very detailed way in which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, spelled out the provisions of this Amendment. We are particularly glad about the method of laying out paragraph (1B) as paragraph (1A). At an earlier stage of the Bill— I think the Committee stage—I stressed the necessity, in the opinion of the accounting profession, that accountancy records should be sufficient to disclose at any time the liquid position of that company.
We are very pleased that the Government and the Department have seen this matter in the most urgent light and we are also very pleased that this paragraph has been inserted at this point. Also we are grateful for the noble Lord's explanation of the methods of stocktaking because, as the noble Lord will be aware, in Amendment No. 23 the methods of stocktaking can vary. Indeed, different methods of stocktaking can affect materially the profit record and the profits of the company and in some cases can have a wholly disproportionate and distorting effect. So far as the other three Amendments are concerned, we are grateful that the noble Lord has presented them and we accept that they clarify a great deal the accounting records.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.27 to 35]
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause:
Appointment and removal of auditors.
—(1) Every company shall at each general meeting of the company at which there are complied with—

(a) the requirements of subsection (6) of section (1) above, or

(b) in relation to any time before the coming into operation of that section, the requirements of section 148 of the Act of 1948 (profit and loss account and balance sheet to be laid before company in general meeting),

appoint an auditor or auditors to hold office from the conclusion of that meeting until the conclusion of the next general meeting of the company at which those requirements are complied with.
(2) Where at any general meeting of a company at which the requirements mentioned in subsection (1) above are complied with no auditors are appointed or reappointed, the Secretary of State may appoint a person to fill the vacancy; and the company shall, within one week of the Secretary of State's power under this subsection becoming exercisable, give the Secretary of State notice of that fact.
(3) The first auditors of a company may be appointed by the directors at any time before the first general meeting of the company at which the requirements mentioned in subsection (1) above are complied with, and auditors so appointed shall hold office until the conclusion of that meeting.
(4) If the directors fail to exercise their powers under subsection (3) above, those powers may be exercised by the company in general meeting.
(5) The directors, or the company in general meeting, may fill any casual vacancy in the office of auditor, but while any such vacancy continues, the surviving or continuing auditor or auditors, if any, may act.
(6) A company may by ordinary resolution remove an auditor before the expiration of his term of office, notwithstanding anything in any agreement between it and him; and where a resolution removing an auditor is passed at a general meeting of a company, the company shall within fourteen days give notice of that fact in the prescribed form to the registrar of companies.
(7) If a company fails to give any such notice as is mentioned in subsections (2) or (6) above, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a default fine.
(8) The remuneration of the auditor of a company—

(a) in the case of an auditor appointed by the directors or by the Secretary of State, may be fixed by the directors or by the Secretary of State, as the case may be;

(b) subject to paragraph (a) above, shall be fixed by the company in general meeting or in such manner as the company in general meeting may determine.

For the purpose of this subsection "remuneration" includes any sums paid by the company in respect of the auditor's expenses.
(9) Where a company's auditor or auditors are holding office at the date of the coming into operation of this section, nothing in subsection (1) above shall be taken as terminating their appointment, or as requiring either their reappointment or the appointment of other auditors, before the conclusion of the annual general meeting of the company held next after that date; and subsections (1) and (2) above shall apply in relation to that meeting as if it were a general meeting of the company at which the requirements mentioned in subsection (1) above were complied with (whether it is such a meeting or not).
(10) Nothing in subsection (6) above shall be taken as depriving a person removed thereunder of compensation or damages payable to him in respect of the termination of his appointment as auditor or of any appointment terminating with that as auditor.
(11) Section 159 of the Act of 1948 (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect.
(12) The repeal by this Act of subsection (2) of the said section 159 (existing auditors of company normally to be treated as reappointed without the passing of any resolution) shall not affect its operation in relation to any meeting of a company commencing within two months of the coming into operation of this section; and in relation to any such meeting section (Supplementary provisions relating to appointment and removal of auditors) (1) below shall apply also to a resolution providing expressly that a retiring auditor shall not be reappointed.
Insert the following new clause:
Supplementary provisions relating to appointment and removal of auditors.
.—(1) Special notice shall be required for a resolution at a general meeting of a company—

(a) appointing as auditor a person other than a retiring auditor; or

(b) filling a casual vacancy in the office of auditor; or

(c) reappointing as auditor a retiring auditor who was appointed by the directors to fill a casual vacancy; or

(d) removing an auditor before the expiration of his term of office.

(2) On receipt of notice of such an intended resolution as aforesaid the company shall forthwith send a copy thereof—

(a) to the person proposed to be appointed or removed, as the case may be;

(b) in a case within subsection (1)(a) above, to the retiring auditor; and

(c) where, in a case within subsection 1)(b) or (c)above, the casual vacancy was caused by the resignation of an auditor, to the auditor who resigned.

(3) Where notice is given of such a resolution as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or ( d)above and the retiring auditor or, as the case may be, the auditor proposed to be removed makes with respect to the intended resolution representations in writing to the company (not exceeding a reasonable length) and requests their notification to members of the company, the company shall (unless the representations are received by it too late for it to do so)—
822

(a) in any notice of the resolution given to members of the company state the fact of the representations having been made, and

(b) send a copy of the representations to every member of the company to whom notice of the meeting is or has been sent.

(4) If a copy of any such representations as are mentioned in subsection (3) above are not sent out as required by the subsection because received too late or because of the company's default, the auditor may (without prejudice to his right to be heard orally) require that the representations shall be read out at the meeting.
(5) Copies of the representations need not be sent out and the representations need not be read out at the meeting if, on the application either of the company or of any other person who claims to be aggrieved, the court is satisfied that the rights conferred by this section are being abused to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter; and the court may order the company's costs on an application under this subsection to be paid in whole or in part by the auditor, notwithstanding that he is not a party to the application.
(6) An auditor of a company who has been removed shall be entitled to attend—

(a) the general meeting at which his term of office would otherwise have expired, and

(b) any general meeting at which it is proposed to fill the vacancy caused by his removal,

and to receive all notices of, and other communications relating to, any such meeting which any member of the company is entitled to receive, and to be heard at any such meeting which he attends on any part of the business of the meeting which concerns him as former auditor of the company.
(7) Section 160 of the Act of 1948 (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect.
Clause 14, leave out Clause 14.
Clause 15, page 18, line 40, after ("(b)") insert ("if the notice contains a statement under subsection (2)(b) above")
Page 19, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 13 and insert—
("(4) The company or any person who claims to be aggrieved may, within fourteen days of the receipt by the company of a notice containing a statement under subsection (2)(b) above, apply to the court for an order under subsection (4A) below.
(4A) If the court, on an application under subsection (4) above, is satisfied that the auditor is using the notice to secure needless publicity for defamatory matter, it may by order direct that copies of the notice need not be sent out; and the court may further order the company's costs on the application to be paid in whole or in part by the auditor, notwithstanding that he is not a party to the application.
(5) The company shall, within fourteen days of the court's decision, send to the persons mentioned in subsection (3) above—

(a)if the court makes an order under subsection (4A) above, a statement setting out the effect of the order;

823

(b) if the court does not make an order under that subsection, a copy of the notice containing the statement under subsection (2)(b) above.")

Clause 16, page 19, line 33, leave out ("annual")
Clause 16, page 19, line 35, leave out from ("any") to second ("the") in line 36 and insert ("general meeting at which it is proposed to fill")
Clause 16, page 19, line 41, after ("so") insert ("(1)")
Clause 16, page 19, line 42, leave out from ("and") to end of line 45 and insert—
("(ii) send a copy of the statement to every member of the company to whom notice of the meeting is or has been sent")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 27 to 35 en bloc. In addition, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 65, 72 and 73. Again this is an Amendment of substance. So far as Amendments Nos. 27 and 28 are concerned, these two new clauses supersede Clause 14 and Sections 159 and 160 of the 1948 Act. They make a number of changes which are necessary to overcome certain difficulties discussed in both Houses arising out of the Clause 15 resignation provision. Most of the provisions, however, are not new; they reflect either the existing law or the provisions of Clause 14. Although the new clauses are lengthy, they do not represent major changes to the Bill.
If I may turn now to Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 34 and 35, these are, in the main, drafting and other minor Amendments which facilitate the operation of Clauses 15 and 16. Amendments Nos. 29, 30, 65, 72 and 73 are consequential upon Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. As I have said, most of the provisions in these new clauses appear either in the present law or in the Bill as introduced. I therefore propose to concentrate on the respects in which these Amendments alter the present position. In the debates in both Houses and in consultations about the Bill, it emerged that there were some potential loopholes in the original drafting of Clauses 14 to 16 of the Bill. There were two main problems. Clause 15 requires an auditor who resigns in midterm to make a statement about the circumstances connected with his resignation. I remember that we had an interesting discussion about this at an earlier stage of the Bill.
824
The purpose of this requirement is to bring to light any relevant facts which may have led to the auditor's resignation and to prevent the auditor who comes across fraud or malpractice from taking the easy way out by resigning and saying nothing. The auditor who completes his term of office but then does not seek re-election is not required to make a statement. In the great majority of cases, there is no need for him to do so because he has completed his audit of the accounts and signed his audit report. If he is not satisfied with the accounts, he will have to qualify his audit report. The audit report therefore achieves the same objectives in these circumstances as the resignation statement.
However, the noble Lord opposite will remember that it was possible under the Bill as originally drafted for an auditor to retire without either completing his audit or making a resignation statement. He just disappeared from sight. This was a serious loophole. The problems arise because at present an auditor's term of office runs until the end of the annual general meeting. Normally, audited accounts are laid before this meeting and, if this is done, no problem arises. But accounts do not have to be laid at the annual general meeting; they can be laid at another meeting. If accounts are not laid at the annual general meeting, the auditor can retire without completing his audit. This is clearly unsatisfactory. I think it was the sense of the House at the time, although I think I argued against it. The first new clause therefore alters the auditor's term of appointment so that in future it will run until the end of the next general meeting at which audited accounts are laid, that is until he has finished the job for which he was appointed. In most cases, the auditor will still retire at the annual general meeting but this Amendment will close the loophole and will ensure that whenever an auditor ceases to hold office, he will either have completed his audit report or will have made a resignation statement. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, these form a major series of Amendments although they are in effect technical, but we are very grateful

825
that the noble Lord and the Government have been able to fill what we regarded as a loophole. If it was not often used there were two minor instances which gave rise to concern over the last 20 years. We are very grateful that the noble Lord has been able to meet our requests on this particular matter.
I should like to ask the noble Lord a question in respect of the second new clause, Amendment No. 28, the supplementary provisions. In subsection (4) of the new clause, and subsection (5) particularly, we still have considerable reference to needless publicity for defamatory matter. In view of some major reports that have appeared in the course of the past summer we are a little worried that this provision appears to be given a great deal of importance and could provide a small peg (if I may call it that) on which to hang the possibility of a law suit for defamation when a particular individual or group feel that they have been wronged as far as an auditor presenting his report is concerned.
However, in view of what the noble Lord has produced for us, and in view of the amount of ground that the Government have covered, we would not wish to probe too deeply into these matters, but it would be gratifying if the noble Lord could indicate that the Government are still continuing to look into such matters because we feel it could be a brake on proper and adequate financial disclosure.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as this is the first time that I have dealt with Commons Amendments I am not certain how much the Government can do at this point. I have a feeling that since it has been through both Houses we either have to agree or disagree and see how it works out in practice. I do not think this is a point at which one can do much other than to accept or reject the Commons Amendments. I do not think I can give an undertaking. I do not think there is anything in between, but I will think about it.
Perhaps it would be helpful to people in understanding the Bill, which is a different thing, if the noble Lord could just touch on the points in subsections (4) and (5) of Amendment No. 28. Subsection (4) says:
826
"If a copy of any such representations as are mentioned in subsection (3) above are not sent out as required by that subsection because received too late or because of the company's default, the auditor may (without prejudice to his right to be heard orally) require that the representations shall be read out at the meeting."
What was the fear of defamatory matter at this point?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, may I offer my apologies? It was my note on the Bill which was in error. In fact, it is subsection (5) which contains, so far as I seem to remember it, the quotation that has been in the 1948 Act. I do not think necessarily it is out of date in any way, but the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has already quietened my fears. The noble Lord said that even at this stage he was still able informally to think about it, and so far as we are concerned, there is no difference at all. We are grateful for this subsection and others. I hope I was not scratching at too minor a detail. Nevertheless, it seemed to me to be something worthy of comment. As the noble Lord knows, we are continuing to discuss these matters and I understand later this year and earlier next year we are likely to have more weighty debates on this subject. I had no intention of trying to he difficult or appearing to be ungrateful after these two major clauses have been produced by the Government.
10.52 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No.36]
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
False statements, &c. to auditors.
—(1) An officer of a company who knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which—

(a) is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular, and

(b) is a statement to which this section applies,

shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) This section applies to any statement made to the auditors of the company (whether orally or in writing) which conveys, or purports to convey, any information or explanation which they require, or are entitled to require, as auditors of the company.
(3) Any person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both; or

(b on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to a fine not exceeding £400, or to both.'

Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. This, too, is an important Amendment. This new clause makes it an offence for an officer of a company knowingly or recklessly to give information to the company's auditors which is false or misleading in a material respect and provides that any officer committing such an offence shall be liable to heavy penalties. A provision of this kind was recommended in the Inspector's report on London and County Securities Limited. The Government have consulted widely and the provision has been generally welcomed.
The clause goes a little further than the original recommendation in the Inspector's Report on London and County Securities Limited in that it makes it an offence to give false or misleading information to an auditor either knowingly or recklessly. This means that it will be an offence not only if an officer deliberately gives such information, but also if he does so not caring whether or not it is true. The new clause provides a powerful sanction against any attempt by an officer of a company to mislead the auditor. It will considerably strengthen the position of the auditor in his dealings with the company's officers, especially if he is suspicious that they are trying to conceal something from him. It will therefore provide important additional protection for the interests of all those connected with the company. I am certain this is something which your Lordships will welcome.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No.37]
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause:
Auditors of body which is both a company and a trade union etc.
—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, this section applies to every body which is both a company and a trade union or employers' association to which section 11 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 applies.
(2) Where any such body as is mentioned in subsection (1) above has auditors who were appointed, before the coming into operation of this section, under subsection (3) of the said section 11 (duty to appoint auditors), this section shall not apply to that body until—
828

(a) the term of office of those auditors expires, or

(b) auditors are next appointed by or on behalf of that body under section (Appointment and removal of auditors) (1) or (2) above,

whichever of those events first occurs.
(3) Subsection (3) of the said section 11 and paragraphs 6 to 15 of Schedule 2 to the said Act of 1974 (qualifications, appointment and removal of auditors) shall cease to have effect in relation to bodies to which this section applies.
(4) The rights and powers conferred, and the duties imposed, by paragraphs 16 to 21 of the said Schedule 2 on the auditors of a body to which this section applies shall belong to the auditors from time to time appointed by or on behalf of that body under section (Appointment and removal of auditors) above.'
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 37. Again this is a matter of substance, and a matter which I also find an interesting point. This new clause clarifies the position of a body which is both a company and a trade union or employers' association, in relation to its duties concerning the qualification, appointment and removal of auditors. Its effect is that auditors appointed for the purposes of the Companies Acts are also to act as auditors for the purposes of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974, and are to have the rights and duties prescribed by that Act. Section 11(3) of that Act (which requires auditors to be appointed to audit the accounts of trade unions and employers' association) will therefore cease to apply to such bodies.
At present, a body which is a company and either a trade union or an employers' association is required both by the Companies Act 1948 and by the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act to appoint auditors, but the requirements of the two Acts relating to the qualification, appointment and removal of the auditors differ, and in some respects are incompatible. This creates considerable uncertainty for the bodies concerned. Although there are relatively few such bodies, this is an unsatisfactory situation which would be made worse by this Bill, which extends the rights of auditors.
This new clause overcomes the difficulty by providing that the auditors of a company which is also a trade union or an employers' association are to be

829
appointed in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Acts, and they are to have the rights conferred by and be subject to the duties imposed by virtue of the 1974 Act as well as those imposed by the Companies Acts. In practice, the same auditors already act for the purposes of both sets of legislation. This Amendment merely regularises the position. The TUC and the CBI have been consulted about this Amendment and are both content, and the Certification Officer who is responsible for overseeing the provisions relating to the auditors of trade unions has been informed by the Department of Employment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.38.]
Clause 19, page 22, line 20, leave out from ("register") to end of line 22.
10.57 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 38. There was resistance in the Commons to one aspect of Clause 19, on the grounds that it constituted a diminution in the information about directors available at Companies House, and the Government decided to withdraw it. This is the reason for this Amendment, which is not of the same weight as earlier ones.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. (Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.39 and 40.]
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Duty of director to notify company of acquisition etc. of its securities
(".—(1) In section 27(3) and (12) and section 31(2) of the Act of 1967 (duty of directors to notify company within fourteen days of acquisition etc. of securities of the company) for the words "fourteen days" wherever they occur there shall be substituted the words "five days".
(2) Subsection (1) above does not affect the time for fulfilling any obligation which arose before the coming into operation of this section.")
Insert the following new clause:
Duty of company to notify recognised stock exchange of acquisition etc., of its securities by director
—(1) Whenever a company in the case of which shares or debentures are listed on a recognised stock exchange is notified of any matter by a director in consequence of the fulfilment of an obligation imposed on him by section 27 or section 31 of the Act of 1967 (duty of directors to notify company of acquisition etc. of securities of the company), and that matter relates to shares or debentures listed on a recognised stock exchange, the company shall be under an obligation to notify that stock exchange of that matter; and the stock exchange may publish, in such manner as it may determine, any information received by it under this subsection.
(2) An obligation imposed by subsection (1) above must be fulfilled before the end of the day next following that on which it arises; but for this purpose, a day which is a Saturday or Sunday or a bank holiday in any part of Great Britain shall be disregarded.
(3) If default is made in complying with this section, the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £500 and further to a default fine.
(4) Proceedings in respect of an offence under this section shall not, in England and Wales, be instituted except by, or with the consent of, the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 39 and 40. The Government had not originally intended to deal with the subject of disclosure of interests in shares in this Bill. It was thought that the subject was too controversial for inclusion in a technical Bill of this nature, and that it, together with insider dealing, would be better considered in the context of the review of the supervision of the securities market generally. However, consultations have shown that there is general agreement on the need to deal with abuses of nominees, including warehousing, and widespread support for the measures proposed in this new clause and the three following new clauses. The Government, therefore, agreed to the Opposition's proposal in the House of Commons that the Bill should be extended so as to include them. Insider dealing presents much greater problems of definition. Although, therefore, the Government have announced their intention to legislate to make insider dealing a criminal offence, it was not possible to do so in this Bill.

831
To turn to this new clause, it will make a useful, if relatively minor, contribution to the control of abuses in securities dealing. The 14-day period for notification of changes in directors' holdings in their companies' shares currently provided under Section 27 of the 1967 Act has been found to be too long in practice. The clause, therefore, reduces the period to five days. This tightening up of the disclosure requirements will increase the deterrent to directors indulging in insider dealing in the company's shares without the knowledge of the company.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.41]
Insert the following new clause:
Duty to notify company of acquisition etc. of voting shares.
—(1) In section 33 of the Act of 1967 (duty to notify company within fourteen days of acquisition etc. of shares amounting to one tenth or more of relevant share capital) for the words "one tenth" and "fourteen days" wherever they occur, there shall be respectively substituted the words "the prescribed percentage" and "five days".
(2) In the said section 33 as amended by subsection (1) above "the prescribed percentage" means 5 per cent. or such other percentage as may from time to time be prescribed for the purposes of that section by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, and different percentages may be so prescribed in relation to companies of different classes or descriptions.
(3) No regulations shall be made under subsection (2) above unless a draft of the instrument containing the regulations has been laid before Parliament and has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) In the case of a company which at the time when this section comes into operation, is one to which the said section 33 applies, every person who at that time is interested in shares comprised in relevant share capital of the company of a nominal value equal to 5 per cent. or more but less than 10 per cent. of the nominal value of that share capital shall be under an obligation to notify the company of the subsistence of his interests at that time and the number of shares comprised in that share capital (specifying it) in which each interest subsists at that time.
(5) Subsections (4) to (10) of the said section 33 (which relate to the enforcement and interpretation of that section) shall have effect in relation to subsection (4) above as they have effect in relation to subsection (2) of that
832
section but as if in subsections (5) and (9) for references to five days there were substituted references to fourtedn days and as if in subsection (5) for references to the prescribed percentage there were substituted references to 5 per cent.
(6) If regulations under subsection (2) above come into operation whereby the prescribed percentage for the purposes of the said section 33 is reduced, subsections (4) and (5) above shall apply in the case of a company in relation to which the regulations have effect as in the case there mentioned but with the substitution—

(a) for references to the time when this section comes into operation of references to the time when the regulations come into operation; and

(b) for references to 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of references to the reduced percentage and the percentage prior to the reduction.

(7) Neither this section nor any regulations made under subsection (2) above shall be construed as requiring the notification by any person of the occurrence of an event before the time when this section or the regulations come into operation; and subsection (1) above does not affect the time for fulfilling any obligation which arose before the time when this section comes into operation.
(8) A person who would, apart from this subsection, be under an obligation, by virtue of subsection (1)(b) of the said section 33, to notify a company of the occurrence of an event shall not be under that obligation if—

(a)the nominal value of shares comprised in relevant share capital of the company in which he was interested immediately before the event, and

(b)the nominal value of shares so comprised in which he is interested immediately after the event,
produce, when each of them is expressed as a percentage of the nominal value of that share capital and (as so expressed) is rounded down, if not a whole number, to the nearest such number, the same result.

(9) In subsection (4) of the said section 33, after paragraph (a)there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
"(aa)an interest as holder of shares of a member of The Stock Exchange who—

(i) is recognised by the Council thereof as carrying on the business of a jobber,

(ii) carries on that business in the United Kingdom, and

(iii) holds the shares for the purposes of that business;"

(10) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that where the relevant share capital of a company to which the said section 33 applies is divided into different classes of shares, references in that section and this section to a percentage of the nominal value of its relevant share capital are references to a percentage of the nominal value of the issued shares comprised in each of those classes taken separately.
11 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, beg to move that this House doth agree

833
with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41. This was another of the new clauses which was added to the Bill in Committee in the House of Commons in response to pressure for measures to deal with warehousing. This clause tightens up the requirements relating to the notification of major beneficial interests in voting shares in listed companies. It is very similar to the corresponding clause in the 1973 Bill but incorporates a number of Amendments designed to meet particular technical problems.
This clause tightens up the requirements of the 1967 Act regarding the disclosure of beneficial interests in the voting shares of listed companies. At present, disclosure has to be made only when a person acquires 10 per cent. or more of such shares. The clause lowers this percentage from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent. and gives the Secretary of State power to alter the percentage by Statutory Instrument subject to Affirmative Resolution. It also requires disclosure to be made within five days instead of 14 days.
The new clause will thus make it much more difficult to abuse the nominee system. The use of nominees can be entirely valid and has many conveniences in practice, especially for banks and other institutional investors who handle investments on behalf of large numbers of beneficiaries. Nevertheless, there have been abuses of the nominee system, including in particular the practice of warehousing. This is the practice whereby a person seeking to obtain control of a company surreptitiously builds up a stake in the company by acting in concert with a group of people each of whom acquires a holding in the company of less than 10 per cent. and is not therefore required to disclose the interest to the company but who will, when the time comes, make their holding available to the potential bidder, thus making it virtually certain that the bid will be successful, irrespective of the interests of the employees and other shareholders. This clause and the following new clause which supplements it will make this practice much more difficult. This clause will mean that a bigger "concert party" will have to be organised in order to build up the same stake in the company and this will not only make it more difficult to organise but will greatly
834
increase the chances of the attempt being discovered. The shortening of the period allowed for notification is also an important strengthening of the law.
The clause makes one other important change in the notification requirements. At present, once the initial threshold has been passed, every purchase or sale, however small, has to be notified. With the lowering of the threshold from 10 per cent. to 5 per cent., this would impose a considerable burden on investors, especially institutional investors, and would tend to flood companies with notifications most of which had little or no significance. The clause was therefore amended in the House of Commons so as to restrict the notification requirement to changes which result in a person's holding reaching or passing a new percentage point; that is, change from 5·5 per cent. to 5·6 per cent. would not have to be notified, but one from 55 per cent. to 6·1 per cent. would. This provision will greatly reduce the number of notifications which have to be made and will thus make it easier to detect significant changes. These are somewhat complex matters, but I know they are important and I commend them to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, as the noble Lord has already stated, this is a complex matter, and it is a particularly complex Amendment. He has explained it clearly and also explained the particular provisions of subsection (8)(b); the rounding up of numbers from 5·5 per cent. to 6·1 per cent. We regard this as a valuable concession, in that it will eliminate much needless and detailed work, but nevertheless will provide adequate safeguards for companies so that each company will know, or at least have a reasonable chance of knowing, who has the beneficial interest in its shares. We regard this Amendment and the new clause as one of the more important additions to the Bill, and we are grateful both to the Government for introducing it and also to the noble Lord for explaining it so clearly.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No.42.]
Insert the following new clause:
Power of company to require disclosure of beneficial interests in its voting shares.
(".—(1) Any company to which section 33 of the Act of 1967 applies (companies with shares listed on a recognised stock exchange) may by notice in writing require any member of the company within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice—

(a) to indicate in writing the capacity in which he holds any shares comprised in relevant share capital of the company; and

(b) if he holds them otherwise than as beneficial owner, to indicate in writing so far as it lies within his knowledge the persons who have an interest in them either by name and address or by other particulars sufficient to enable those persons to be identified) and the nature of their interest.

(2) Where a company is informed in pursuance of a notice given to any person under subsection (1) above or under this subsection that any other person has an interest in any shares comprised in relevant share capital of the company, the company may by notice in writing require that other person within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice—

(a) to indicate in writing the capacity in which he holds that interest; and

(b) if he holds it otherwise than as beneficial owner, to indicate in writing so far as it lies within his knowledge the persons who have an interest in it (either by name and address or by other particulars sufficient to enable them to be identified) and the nature of their interest.

(3) Any company to which the said section 33 applies may by notice in writing require any member of the company to indicate in writing within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice, whether any of the voting rights carried by any shares comprised in relevant share capital of the company held by him are the subject of an agreement or arrangement under which another person is entitled to control his exercise of those rights and, if so, to give so far as it lies within his knowledge written particulars of the agreement or arrangement and the parties to it.
(4) Where a company is informed in pursuance of a notice given to any person under subsection (3) above or under this subsection that any other person is a party to any such agreement or arrangement as is mentioned in subsection (3) above, the company may by notice in writing require that other person within such reasonable time as is specified in the notice to give so far as it lies within his knowledge written particulars of the agreement or arrangement and the parties to it.
(5) Whenever a company receives information from a person in pursuance of a requirement imposed on him under this section with respect to shares held by a member of the company, it shall be under an obligation to inscribe against the name of that member in a separate part of the register kept by it under section 34 of the Act of 1967 (register of interests in voting shares)—
836

(a) the fact that the requirement was imposed and the date on which it was imposed; and

(b) the information received in pursuance of the requirement.

(6) Subsections (2) to (9) of the said section 34 (which relate to the manner in which the register is to be made up and provide for public inspection of the register) shall apply in relation to the part of the register referred to in subsection (5) above as they apply in relation to the remainder of the register and as if references to subsection (1) of that section included references to subsection (5) above.
(7) Subject ot subsections (8) and (9) below, any person who—

(a) fails to comply with a notice under this section; or

(b) in purported compliance with such a notice makes any statement which he knows to be false in a material particular or recklessly makes any statement which is false in a material particular,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable

(i) on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both; or

(ii) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding £400 or to both.

(8) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection(7)(a) above if he proves that the information in question was already in the possession of the company or that the requirement to give it was for any other reason frivolous or vexatious.
(9) A person shall not be obliged to comply with a notice under this section if he is for the time being exempted by the Secretary of State from the operation of this section; but the Secretary of State shall not grant any such exemption except after consultation with the Governor of the Bank of England and unless satisfied that, having regard to any undertaking given by the person in question with respect to the shares held or to be held by him, there are special reasons why that person should not be subject to the obligations imposed by this section.
(10) In this section "relevant share capital" has the same meaning as in section 33 of the Act of 1967.
11.5 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42. This is not a simple Amendment; it is another complex one. This is a new clause which enables companies to go behind holdings in the names of nominees and to Lind out who the beneficial owners are. It is thus an important supplement to the previous new clause. It enables nominee names to continue to be used for legitimate purposes, but makes it possible to frustrate misuses of nominees. It will be

837
particularly valuable to companies who suspect that a prospective bidder is trying to build up a stake under cover of nominees. In such circumstances, the clause will enable the company to find out who is behind the move and to take defensive action. The clause, as now drafted, is based on the corresponding provision in the 1973 Companies Act, hut incorporates a number of Amendments to deal with certain practical problems which were brought to the Government's attention during consultations about the clause.
I could go on at some length on this matter, but I do not know whether that would be the wish of your Lordships. The important thing about this Amendment is that it enables a company which suspects that a takeover bid is coming to penetrate behind the screen which nominees are using and to defend its own interests as a company. If your Lordships wish to go into a wider debate on the subject I am willing to do so, but do not know whether you would wish me to do so at this hour of the night. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I certainly should not wish the noble Lord to go into any wide debate. We think that this is a valuable provision. We agree that it hangs with the previous new clause and is a valuable supplement to it. I am sure that the noble Lord and the Government will agree with our hope that this provision will not be abused by companies. It could cause a nominee company which, for various good reasons wishes to have lots and lots of small shareholders under one umbrella (if one might use that term), what I might describe as needless trouble and expense. However, I believe that such occasions will be rare and that such events are indeed necessary so that companies may have protection and may be able—I think the noble Lord put it this way—to peer behind or through the screen of nominee companies which we agree have been used in the past for purposes which are possibly not beneficial to commercial life. Therefore, we are grateful for this clause which has been added to the Bill.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.43 and 44.]
Clause 21, page 24, line 15, after ("period") insert ("beginning with the date of the order and").
Page 25, line 24, after ("company") insert ("(wherever incorporated)").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 en bloc. Amendment No. 43 is a drafting Amendment which clarifies the date upon which a disqualification order begins. Amendment No. 44 is a similar drafting Amendment. This Amendment makes it clear that overseas companies with a place of business in Great Britain are to be included among those companies in respect of which persons disqualified under Clause 21 may not act as a director or take part in management. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Win terbottoni.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No.45.]
After Clause 21 insert the following new clause:
Register of disqualification orders.
.—(1) The prescribed officer of any court which—

(a) makes an order, after the coming into operation of this section, that a person shall not, without the leave of the court, be a director of or in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the management of a company for such period as may be specified in the order, or

(b) grants leave in relation to any such order which is so made,

shall at such time and in such manner and form as may be prescribed, furnish the Secretary of State with the prescribed particulars of the order or the grant of leave.
This subsection applies whether the order is made under section 188 of the Act of 1948, section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976 or section 21 above.
(2) The Secretary of State shall, from the particulars with which he is furnished under subsection (1) above, maintain a register of such orders and of cases in which the court has granted leave.
(3) On the expiration of an order of which particulars are entered on the register, the Secretary of State shall delete from the register—

839

(a)those particulars, and

(b) any particulars of cases in which the court has granted leave in relation to that order.

(4) The register shall be open to inspection on payment of such fee as may be specified by the Secretary of State in regulations made by statutory instrument.
(5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under subsection (4) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
11.10 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45. Again, this is a matter of substance. This new clause provides for the keeping of a public register containing details of persons disqualified under Clause 21 of the Bill, Clause 9 of the Insolvency Bill or Section 188 of the 1948 Act. It will clearly be useful to those having dealings with companies to have available a public register of those who are disqualified by the courts from being a director or from taking part in the management of a company, and showing whether a court has granted leave to any such persons to undertake any particular post despite their disqualification.
More specifically, the new clause provides that a court making a disqualification order, or granting leave, shall notify the Secretary of State of the particulars of the order or the grant of leave. The Secretary of State shall maintain a register containing the information so notified by the courts, and shall delete the relevant entries when orders have expired. The register will be open to public inspection, for which a fee will be charged. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a useful safeguard. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[Lord Winterbottom.]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No.46.]
Insert the following new clause:
Companies with registered offices in Wales
.—(1) The memorandum of a company registered after the coming into operation of this section may, instead of containing the statement required by section 2(1)(b) of the
840
Act of 1948, contain a statement that the registered office of the company is to be situated in Wales.
(2) A company registered before the coming into operation of this section whose registered office is situated in Wales may, within the period of twelve months beginning with the coming into operation of this section, by special resolution alter its memorandum so as to provide that the registered office of the company is to be situated in Wales.
(3) Where after the coming into operation of this section a limited company is to be registered with a memorandum stating that its registered office is to be situated in Wales, the memorandum may, instead of stating the name of the company as required by section 2(1)(a) of the Act of 1948, state the name of the company with "cyfyngedig" as the last word of that name.
(4) Where the memorandum of a limited company states that its registered office is to be situated in Wales, the approval of the Secretary of State shall not be required for any change of the name of the company which consists only of substituting "cyfyngedig" for "limited" or vice versa.
(5) Where the name of a limited company has "cyfyngedig" as the last word of that name, the fact that the company is a limited company shall be stated in English and in legible characters—

(a) in all prospectuses, bill-heads, letter paper, notices and other official publications of the company; and

(b) in a notice conspicuously displayed in every place in which the company's business is carried on;

and if this subsection is contravened the company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
(6) Where after the coming into operation of this section a company is to be registered with a memorandum stating that its registered office is to be situated in Wales, the memorandum and articles to be delivered for registration under section 12 of the Act of 1948 may be in Welsh but, if they are, they shall be accompanied by a certified translation into English; and where a company has altered its memorandum as mentioned in subsection (2) above it may deliver to the registrar of companies for registration a certified translation into Welsh of its memorandum and articles.
(7) Any company whose memorandum states that its registered office is to be situated in Wales may comply with any provision of the Companies Acts requiring it to deliver any document to the registrar of companies by delivering to him that document in Welsh (or, if it consists of a prescribed form, completed in Welsh) together with a certified translation into English; but any document making or evidencing an alteration in the company's memorandum or articles and any copy of a company's memorandum or articles as altered shall be in the same language as the memorandum and articles originally registered and, if that language is Welsh, shall be accompanied by a certified translation into English.
(8) Where a company has under subsection (6) above delivered a translation into Welsh of its memorandum and articles, it may when delivering to the registrar of companies a document making or evidencing an alteration in the memorandum or articles or a copy of the memorandum or articles as altered, deliver therewith a certified translation into Welsh.
(9) In this section "certified translation" means a translation certified in the prescribed manner to be a correct translation and any reference to delivering a document shall be construed as including a reference to sending, forwarding, producing or (in the case of a notice) giving it.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. In addition, I wish to attach to it Amendments Nos. 58 and 63. This new clause was added to the Bill in Committee in the House of Commons in response to pressure for legislation to regularise the use of Welsh for Companies Acts purposes. Lord Reigate had earlier expressed disappointment that the Bill did not deal with this point. I believe that in fact this particular situation was covered under the 1973 Bill. The clause permits a company to state in its memorandum of association that its registered office is to be situated in "Wales" rather than in "England", and allows a company whose registered office is stated in the memorandum to be situated in Wales—and here I enter into a difficulty—to use the expression "Cyfyngedig" instead of "limited" as the last word of its name, and to deliver documents to the Registrar of Companies in Welsh. Provision is made to ensure that documents submitted in Welsh are accompanied by a certified English translation. Provision is also made for companies incorporated before the clause enters into effect to amend their memorandum so as to obtain the benefit of the new privileges. My Lords, this is an Amendment which peers into the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with
the Commons in the said Amendment.— (Lord Winterbottom.)
Lord LYELLMy Lords, in the light of what the noble Lord. Lord Winter-bottom, has said—that we were peering into the future—so far as the use of Welsh becoming a commercial practice is concerned, I think this is certainly laudable and praiseworthy. However,
842
I think an entire articles of association or prospectus produced in Welsh might somewhat restrict the availability in the market of such shares. I wondered whether it was possible at this stage, while in no way wishing to disagree with any Amendment coming from another place—indeed, this particular Amendment we regard as an improvement to the Bill—for the noble Lord or for the Government, or possibly for the noble Lord the Lord Chairman, to give a precise definition of this Welsh word "cyfyngedig". Does it mean exactly the same as "limited" as we understand it in English? Of course, the noble Lord may be aware that there are other languages, the substantial use of which might become current in the United Kingdom, and that we might have commercial documents written in them; for instance, Urdu. Or even the Asian community here might wish to put out their own prospectuses for shares in their own language. But so far as Welsh is concerned, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could confirm that this Welsh word "cyfyngedig" does mean what I hope it means and what I believe the Government intend it to mean. But we approve very much of the new clause.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.47 and 48]
Clause 22, page 25, line 33, leave out from ("the") to ("or") in line 36 and insert ("relevant date")
Clause 22, page 25, line 38, at end insert—
("In this subsection "relevant date" means the date on which the company has complied with—

(a) section 407 of the Act of 1948 (documents to be delivered for registration by oversea company when establishing a place of business in Great Britain); or

(b) if there has been a change in its corporate name, section 409(2) of that Act (return to be delivered for registration by oversea company where corporate name is changed.)")

11.15 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with their Commons in their Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 en bloc. At the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 60. Clause 22 provides the Secretary of State with a useful new power to prevent companies incorporated overseas which have a place of business in Great Britain from trading in this country under

843
undesirable or misleading names. It enables him to serve notice on an oversea company to the effect that he considers the use of its corporate name here is or would be undesirable, and provides for penalties to be imposed on the company and its officers if the company continues to carry on business in this country under its corporate name more than two months after notice has been served.
However, as it is drafted, the clause enables the Secretary of State to serve notice on companies only during a period of six months following their registration under Part X of the Companies Act 1948—or within 6 months of the coming into operation of the Bill if that is later. It does not give him any power to deal with the situation in which an oversea company which has been established here for more than six months changes its corporate name to a name that is undesirable. This is a serious lacuna. Following on what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned, I may say that "lacuna" is a Latin word and that, as he said, one day we may have to deal with prospectuses in foreign languages. I once made an election address—which is a form of prospectus—in Urdu.
The Amendments meet it by enabling the Secretary of State to serve notice on an oversea company to the effect that use of a new corporate name is or would be undesirable provided that he does so within six months of receipt of notification of a change of its corporate name.
Moved, That this House doth agree with Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No.49]
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause:
Contents of prospectus
(". In Schedule 4 to the Act of 1948 (matters to be specified in prospectus etc.), in paragraph 6 after the words "on each share" there shall be inserted the words "including the amount, if any, payable by way of premium" and at the end of that paragraph there shall be inserted the words "including the amount, if any, paid by way of premium".")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their
844
Amendment No. 49. This is, I think, the only completely new Amendment which we have to consider in this House tonight and we think it a matter of some importance. From now on, I hope that the going will be downhill all the way. Perhaps I ought to explain to noble Lords its significance. We are now talking about an unlisted oversea mutual investment fund and such a fund is threatening to challenge in the courts the Department's interpretation of paragraph 6 of the Fourth Schedule to the 1948 Act. The Fourth Schedule sets out the matters to be specified in a prospectus and paragraph 6 requires there to be stated, "the amount payable" on each share on application and allotment. It has always been the Department's view that "the amount payable" meant the total amount payable on each share, including any amount payable by way of premium. A mutual fund is unable to specify the precise amount payable as the price of its shares fluctuates from day to day and is thus unable to issue a prospectus which complies with this requirement. This provision has prevented overseas mutuals (other than those exempted from the Fourth Schedule requirements by virtue of listing on the Stock Exchange) from operating in this country. However, if the present challenge to the Department's interpretation were upheld, overseas mutuals would be able to operate here without being subject to any effective supervision. I am certain from past experience that this could be highly detrimental to the interests of investors.
The Government have therefore decided to take this opportunity to put the interpretation of the relevant points beyond doubt. The interpretation of the expression of the amount payable is important for all Compnay prospectuses. It is not only related to the question of the position of overseas mutuals but it is a problem about such mutuals which makes the point urgent. For this reason, we are including this new clause in the Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)
11.20 p.m.
Lord LYELLMy Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, has pointed

845
out, we regard this as a matter of some importance. He has been kind enough to point out that it is the only new paragraph in the Bill which certainly we felt did not receive the fullest discussion in another place when it was introduced. The noble Lord has said, and, indeed, the Minister in another place said, it was considered the matter which was urgent. If this was the case, there might be some reason for the time-scale when the Amendment was introduced in another place (it was about this time in the night or possibly a little later). The Government said in another place, and indeed the noble Lord has said tonight, that this measure is deemed to be necessary because a concept has been challenged. We regret slightly that the Government have not been able to he a little more specific than the answer given even this evening by the noble Lord about this Amendment, and the particular case which has given rise to the need for the Amendment.
We understand that the cases, which gave rise to this Amendment were in no sense scandalous, were in no sense improper, and that from the researches that we have been able to make this fund seems to be a properly constituted and, indeed, reputable fund.
The noble Lord will agree it is indeed most unusual to move an Amendment of this importance and magnitude even on Report in another place, when the Bill has virually completed its passage through Parliament. We think the interpretation of "amount payable" had been under consideration, or under challenge, for a reasonable amount of time. We wondered why it was necessary to move so swiftly and in such a manner. We hasten to point out it was not in an underhand manner, but at half past 12 at night on Report stage. That shows a great deal of urgency. Possibly the degree of urgency is only a matter which divides this side and the other. As the noble Lord pointed out earlier, this is not the time to differ. I suggest that we differ slightly on the need to close up this loophole. We should like to see some further discussion, but this is not possible and we accept the Amendment.
Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his courteous acceptance of my rather shortened explanation. I agree with him that the way
846
this was introduced at a late hour of the night precluded study of the problem with a proper debate with informed study of the background situation. I should underline that nothing whatever has been improperly done by the company in question that is proposing to launch this particular mutual fund. The Government had good reason to believe that a formal challenge of the Department's interpretation of paragraph (6) was shortly to have been made in the Courts arising from this situation. They did not wish this to happen, and for this reason they—perhaps a little too rapidly—moved this clause into the Bill to clarify the position so application to Court might not be necessary. I think the House will agree there is no question of impropriety on the part of anyone in this matter.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 50 and 51]
Clause 25, page 28, line 29, leave out from ("with") to first ("the") in line 32.
Clause 25, page 28, line 34, leave out from ("applies") to end of line 41.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 50 and 51. As I said, I hope this is downhill all the way now. I should like, if I may, to take No. 51 with No. 50. These are drafting Amendments. They clarify the provision in subsection (4) relating to the period of grace during which companies can resubmit documents without becoming liable or increasing any liability for default. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No.52]
Clause 26, page 29, line 8, at end insert—
("() Section 426 of the Act of 1948 (inspection, production and evidence of documents kept by the registrar) shall have effect as if any material so accepted were a document kept by the registrar.")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 52. This Amendment provides that returns and other documents delivered

847
to the Registrar in non-documentary form shall be regarded as documents for the purposes of section 426 of the 1948 Act—inspection, production and evidence of documents kept by Registrar. The Amendment was added to the Bill in Committee in another place.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.53–54]
Clause 28, page 30, line 15, leave out ("390 and 426(3)") and insert ("and 390")
Clause 28, page 30, line 18, at end inser—
("() Copies or extracts of documents or parts of documents furnished by the registrar of companies under section 426 of the Act of 1948 shall be sealed with a seal prepared under section 424(5) of that Act instead or being certified to be true copies under the hand of the registrar.")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 53 and 54. I should like to include also Amendment No. 62. These Amendments make an alteration to the procedure for authentication of copies or extracts of documents provided by the Registrar under Section 426 of the 1948 Act. They are required as a result of the moving of Companies House to Cardiff and the use by the Registrar of microfiche facilities.
Section 426 requires the Registrar on request to certify that a copy of or extract from any document supplied by him is a true copy and provides that such certified copies shall be admissible in evidence in legal proceedings as having equal validity with the original document. A problem will arise in this connection when the move to Cardiff is complete, in that copies or extracts furnished by the London office will be taken from the set of microfiche records kept there, rather than from the original, since all original documents will be in Cardiff. It will not physically be possible for the Registrar to check that a copy so furnished is a true copy since he will not have the original with which to compare it and it would therefore be wrong to require him to certify that it was a true copy. These Amendments provide that in future each copy shall be authenticated by the seal
848
of the Department to indicate that it is an official copy supplied by the Registrar and that copies so sealed shall have equal validity in legal proceedings. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.55–56.]
Clause 31, page 31, line 6, leave out ("17") an d insert ("(False statements etc. to auditors), (Appointment and removal of auditors), (Supplementary provisions relating to appointment and removal of auditors).")
Clause 31, page 31, line 8, leave out ("17") and insert ("(False statements etc. to auditors), (Appointment and removal of auditors), (Supplementary provisions relating to appointment and removal of auditors.)")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 55 and 56. The four new clauses dealing with disclosure of interests in shares and so on amend the corresponding provisions of the 1967 Act which do not apply to unregistered companies. There is therefore no need to apply these clauses to such companies. The other new clauses (Welsh language, Prospectuses, Auditors of a trade union et cetera, and Register of disqualified persons) are not relevant to unregistered companies. These Amendments clarify this point. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 57.]
Clause 35, page 32, line 22, after ("1972") insert ("section 9 of the Insolvency Act 1976, sections 1 to 4 of the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 57. There have been two other Bills considered in Parliament this Session, parts of which deal with company law. It is therefore necessary to amend the citation "The Companies Acts 1948 to 1976" to include the relevant parts of those measures. The Stock Exchange

849
(Completion of Bargains) Act received Royal Assent on 12th October. The Insolvency Bill has passed through both Houses and the Commons Amendments have been considered by the Lords.
It is important that the definition of "The Companies Acts 1948 to 1976 "should include all relevant provisions. As there are provisions dealing with company law in other Bills having received or due to receive Royal Assent in this session, it is necessary to amend the citation clause to include them. Clause 9 of the Insolvency Bill needs to be included because it deals with the disqualification of directors. Sections 1 to 4 of the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act deal with the issuing and sealing of certificates for securities and with the use of computers and other non-documentary methods for company records. My Lords, this is obviously a necessary Amendment in view of the lumping of legislation at the end of the Session. I hope your Lordships will accept it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.58.]
Schedule 2, page 34, line 39, at end insert—
'In section 12 of the Act of 1948 for the words from "the registrar of companies for England" to "or Scotland" there shall be substituted the words "the registrar of companies for England if the memorandum states that the registered office of the company is to be situated in England or that it is to be situated in Wales, and to the registrar of companies for Scotland if the memorandum states that the registered office of the company is to be situated in Scotland.'
Lord WINTERBOTTOMMy Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 58.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 59.]
Page 35, line 3, at end insert—
("In section 38(5)(b) of the Act of 1948 for the words "dealt in or quoted" there shall be substituted the word "listed".
In section 39(1)(b) of the Act of 1948 for the words "dealt in or quoted" there shall be substituted the word "listed".
In section 51(1) of the Act of 1948 for the words "dealt in" there shall be substituted the word "listed".
In section 52(1) of the Act of 1948 at the end of paragraph (a]there shall be inserted the words "whether on account of the nominal value of the share or by way of premium".")
Lord WINTERB0TTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59. I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 61, 66, 68 and 69. Almost all these Amendments are consequential on earlier Amendments. The only exceptions are the first part of Amendment No. 59 and Amendments Nos. 61, 66, 68 and 69. This group of Amendments brings the terminology of the Companies Acts up to date by substituting the expression "listing" for quotation"or "dealt in" in relation to securities listed on the Stock Exchange. The Amendments to Schedule 2 fall into 2 groups. The majority are consequential on earlier Amendments to the Bill. The remainder bring the terminology of the Companies Acts up to date by substituting the expression "listing" for the outmoded terms "quotation" or "dealt in" in relation to securities listed on the Stock Exchange. This is not only drafting but semantics. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.60 to 66.]
Page 36, line 23, at end insert—
("Section 409 of the Act of 1948 shall be renumbered as subsection (1) of that section, and after that subsection there shall be inserted—
" (2) If any change is made in the corporate name of an oversea company, the company shall, within the prescribed time, deliver to the registrar for registration a return containing the prescribed particulars of the change."").
Page 36, line 26, at end insert—
("In section 417(5)(b) of the Act of 1948 for the words "dealt in or quoted" there shall be substituted the word "listed".
In section 418(1)(b) of the Act of 1948 for the words dealt in or quoted" there shall be substituted the word "listed".").
Page 36, line 27, leave out lines 27 to 30 and insert—
("In section 426 of the Act of 1948, in subsection (1) for the words from "copy or extract

851
of any other document "to" registrar" there shall be substituted the words "sealed copy or extract of any other document or any part of any other document"; and in subsection (3) for the words from "certified" to "prove)" there shall he substituted the words "sealed with a seal prepared under section 424(5) of this Act.""
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—
("In section 439 of the Act of 1948 for the words "limited ', or any contraction or imitation of that word" there shall be substituted the words "limited 'or' cyfyngedig', or any contraction or limitation of either of those words."")
Page 37, line 12, leave out from ("1976") to end of line 13.
Page 37, line 18, leave out from ("Table C") to ("of") in line 19 and insert ("for the words from" section 159 "to the end there shall be substituted the words" section 161 of the Act, section 14 of the Companies Act 1967 and sections 13 to 17 (Appointment and removal of auditors) and (Supplementary provisions relating to the appointment and removal of auditors) ".").
Page 37, line 20, at end insert—
"In Schedule 8 to the Act of 1948, in paragraph 5(2)(c) for the word quoted" there shall be substituted the word "listed" and for the word "unquoted" there shall be substituted the word "unlisted".
In Schedule 8 to the Act of 1948, in paragraph 5A for the word unquoted "there shall be substituted the word "unlisted".
"In Schedule 8 to the Act of 1948, in paragraph 8 for the word "quoted" in subparagraphs (I)(a) and (3) there shall be substituted the word "listed" for the word "unquoted" in sub-paragraph (1)(a) there shall be substituted the word "unlisted" and for the words "quotation or permission to deal" in subparagraph (3) there shall be substituted the word "listing".
In Schedule 8 to the Act of 1948, in paragraph 11 for the word "unquoted" in subparagraph (6A) there shall be substituted the word "unlisted" and the word "quoted" in sub-paragraph (8) there shall be substituted the word "listed".
In Schedule 8 to the Act of 1948 in paragraph 12(1)(g) for the word "quoted" there shall be substituted the word "listed" and for the word "unquoted" there shall be substituted the word "unlisted".
In Schedule 8 to the Act of 1948. in paragraph 28 for the word "quoted" there shall be substituted the word "listed for the words" quotation or permission to deal "there shall be substituted the word" listing "and for the word" unquoted "there shall be substituted the word" unlisted ".").
11.34 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 60 to 66, en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterboitoin.)
The Lord Bishop of ELY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, whether he could explain Amendment No. 63. What have the Government in mind in connection with the "imitation" of the word "limited" and the Scottish and Welsh equivalents? Does it mean the imitation of the word or the limitation of the word? I understand the limitation of "limited" to "Ltd.", but I am not sure what is meant by imitation of the word.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a very interesting semantic point. May I just read Amendment No. 63 for your Lordships' information? It states:
Page 36, line 35, at end insert—
("In section 439 of the Act of 1948 for the words "limited ', or any contraction or imitation of that word there shall he substituted the words "limited 'or' cyfyngedig', or any contraction or imitation of either of those words."")
The right reverend Prelate has an acute eye. I suspect that it may be a misprint, because I know that there are two misprints.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I believe that there were some misprints in Amendment No. 14, but it seems that "imitation" is fairly clear. I have been addressing my mind to this problem, and I admit that I do not know how one would imitate "limited" or "cyfyngedicr,", the Welsh equivalent. The right reverend Prelate could well be right and it might be "limitation".
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it is not a mistake. I understand that Section 439 makes it an offence to use the word "limited" if the body is not a limited company. The word "imitation" is therefore right. It is also an offence to use a word which is an imitation of "limited". If a company which is not limited is called a limited company, you are imitating a limited company. The noble Lord is an accountant and perhaps he can help.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I put it as an attempt to deceive an officer when the candidate for a court-martial has succeeded in doing that. I suspect that the word "imitation means what the noble Lord believes it to mean. His information will be more up-to-date and precise than my studies of the 1948 to 1967 Acts, and this Bill. It would appear to be the equivalent

853
of attempting to deceive when, in fact, one has already deceived and there is no attempt at all.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I hope that the right reverend Prelate is satisfied by this joint elucidation of a very misleading Amendment.
The Lord Bishop of ELY. My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explication of this difficult semantic matter at this time of night.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.67.]
Schedule 2, page 38, line 16, leave out ("section 22") and insert ("the foregoing provisions of this Part")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 67. This is a correction of a drafting error.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.68 and 69.]
Schedule 2, page 38, line 31, at end insert—
("In section 25(2)(a) and (b) of the Act of 1967 for the word "quotation" there shall be substituted the word "listing".")
Schedule 2, page 38, line 33, at end insert—
("In section 33(10) of the Act of 1967 for the word "quotation" there shall be substituted the word "listing".")
11.39 p.m.
Lord W1NTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 68 and 69.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 70 and 71.]
Schedule 2, page 38, line 37, at end insert—
("In section 17(1) of the Insurance Companies Act 1974 for the words "Companies Acts 1948 to 1967" there shall be substituted the words "Companies Acts 1948 to 1976".")
Schedule 2, page 38, line 46, at end insert—
("The Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976
In section 3(3) and (4) of the Stock Exchange (Completion of Bargains) Act 1976 for the words "Companies Acts 1948 to 1967" there shall be substituted the words "Companies Acts 1948 to 1976".")
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 and 71. These amend references in other Acts to the Companies Act, to include a reference to this Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.72 and 73.]
Schedule 3, page 39, line 28, leave out ("Section 159(2)") and insert ("Sections 159 and 160").
Schedule 3, page 40, line 17, at end insert ("Section 14(8)(c)").
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have spoken to these two Amendments. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Winterbottom.)

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain Lords Amendments agreed to: certain other Lords Amendments agreed to with Amendments; and the remaining Lords Amendments disagreed with Reasons for such disagreement; the said Amendments and Reasons to be printed.

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Message from the Commons that they have made the following Order to which they desire the concurrence of this House:
That the Promoters of the Anglian Water Authority Bill [H.L.] shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their

855
intention to suspend further proceedings not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;
That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill, unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session, and their locus standi has not been disallowed;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceeding on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.