Lords Sitting of 27 October 1976

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

CONFERENCE ON THE MIDDLE EAST
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude towards the reconvening of the Geneva Conference on the Middle East, which is now supported by both the USA and the Soviet Union.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we would support any form of negotiation designed to bring to an end the dispute between the Arabs and Israel, including the Geneva Conference, so long as it had the support of all the parties concerned.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am encouraged by that reply, but may I ask the Minister this question? Since the matter is now before Dr. Waldheim, the United Nations Secretary General, would it not be possible for him to sound the countries which would be involved to find out whether they would accept a conference? In view of the accord between America, the Soviet Union and now Her Majesty's Government, is it not unlikely that any major country would refuse?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I in my turn also thank my noble friend for his encouraging supplementary question. I have no doubt that Dr. Waldheim, like most intelligent people, closely studies Hansard, especially that of this House.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there is no point in having a conference for the sake of having one? Unless the parties are willing, conferences never settle anything?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree. It is absolutely necessary that a conference of this nature should be very carefully prepared.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case, however, that the present situation in the Middle East is more promising for such a conference, since it looks as though there will be a solution to the appalling problem of the Lebanon? Would not Her Majesty's Government be able to contribute a very constructive mediatory role, in view of the fact that America may have a more pro-Israel President while the Soviet Union will remain pro-Arab? Could not Britain act as mediator between the two sides?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, under successive Administrations, Britain has always taken an even-handed approach to this very difficult problem and continues to do so. I have no doubt that when the time comes for such a conference we shall be ready with a constructive contribution, though in what role I could not now anticipate. As my noble friend has said, it is encouraging that both the United States and the Soviet Union have expressed similar views as to the possibility of such a conference. I have no doubt that the Soviet Union, as well as our American friends, are well aware that no immediate move is possible so long as there is a slight local pre-occupation across the Atlantic.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that in international conferences mediators are effective only when they have the biggest stick?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, I would not necessarily agree. There are circumstances in which those who have not a direct interest wield the greatest influence in the centre That would not be the case, of course, with Britain. We have a considerable interest in the stability of the Middle East and an

423
historical and worthy role in the development of that part of the world. I take on board the suggestion that at the right time we should make ourselves available in whatever role proves acceptable for a constructive contribution to such a conference.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, although it is perhaps of tangential relevance to the Question, has the noble Lord any up to date news to give to the House about the appalling disaster which has overtaken the Lebanon in recent months?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the conference in Riyadh last week yielded some hopeful indications that when the Cairo Summit is convened in the next two or three weeks there may be a move towards the reconstitution of the Lebenan State as an integral independent country. Our own attitude is well known. We wish to see the Lebanon restored as a viable independent State which is not subject to undue influence from any quarter outside it.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, would not the Minister consider that for any conference of this character to be successful Israel and the Arab nations must get closer together than they are now?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords; I am very glad to endorse those sentiments. If there were a basis of agreement for friendship between the Arabs and Israel—and it is perfectly possible for this to happen—then that would possibly overtake the need for a conference. Certainly it would be the best possible basis for a conference.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, could my noble friend confirm that Israel has made innumerable attempts to get together with the Arab nations and that it has been turned down?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that Israel will continue to make such attempts in the great hope that not every one of them will be turned down.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that a distinction
424
must be drawn between Arabs and Palestinians, in that one cannot expect the State of Israel to sit down at a negotiating table with Palestinian leaders who still hold to their tenet and do not recognise the independent sovereignty of Israel?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is essential that the Arab world should recognise Israel as a permanent State and as a very constructive element in the Middle East. It is equally necessary—and this is perhaps additional to Resolution 242 which this country promoted in the United Nations—that due regard be had for the need to recognise the national identity of the Palestinians.

CONCORDE SERVICE TO AUSTRALIA
2.37 p.m.
Viscount GOSCHEN: 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 when British Airways will start their Concorde services to Australia.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the start of the British Airways service to Melbourne depends on a number of factors and I would rather not speculate now about the precise date.
Viscount GOSCHEN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that somewhat unsatisfactory reply. Can he tell me whether the over flying, landing and take-off rights in the various countries concerned en route have now been satisfactorily agreed?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords; we need new corridors and they are being negotiated. In particular, I should mention the Gulf area and Indonesia.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does that reply mean that we have made some progress over clearing the supersonic overflying rights on the Pacific routes over India?
Lord ORAM: No, my Lords, India continues to be a difficulty.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a considerable shortage of Concorde pilots, due to the fact that certain Concorde instructors are at variance with British Airways as to whether they should be allowed cars to travel to the places of instruction free of charge?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, there is such a dispute going on, although I would not say that it is a major factor. However, the relationships with the staff represent part of the delay in training pilots, and the insufficient number of trained pilots is one of the factors to which I referred.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that, if these landing rights and overflying rights are agreed, the service would be able to operate forthwith?
Lord ORAM: Not forthwith, my Lords; the opening of the route to Australia is linked with the question of the route being opened to New York, about which a decision is hoped for fairly soon.

DEFINITION OF LIVESTOCK
2.40 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: 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 is the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food's definition of livestock, and whether it includes fish cultivated for food and, if not, why not.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there are a number of definitions of livestock in legislation. These definitions were of course designed to fit the purpose of the Statutes in question. It is not possible to generalise on whether livestock includes fish farming without looking at the particular context in which it appears.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that somewhat ambiguous answer, may I ask him whether it would not be a good idea to try to get a general definition
426
of livestock to include any fish farming or any fish industry of any kind within that word? I understand that the Government are reluctant to include fish farming as farming, partly for expense reasons. Is the noble Lord aware that we should save at least £8 million a year if we were self-sufficient, which we could be if the industry were given the encouragement it ought to have?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, at present the basic problems of fish farming arise in research and development. The industry has a great future. But we do not believe it would be appropriate to legislate by analogy. On the other hand, we are giving £1 million for research and development towards the development of this industry. I think an example of the growth of the industry would be when we remember that in the last 10 years the number of fish farms has risen from some 20 to 400.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, if I may say so, the words of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, underline the importance of this industry. It is a growing industry. Would the noble Lord not agree that a Working Party has been set up to look into the problems, and that it is time we had some result from their work?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am glad to say that discussions are taking place between the Department and the fish farming interests. A report was issued earlier this year, and it is hoped to issue a further report in the new year.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, with regard to the definition of livestock mean that there is a special branch in each Department concerted with the compilation of dictionaries? Or is this done by means of a special committee which co-ordinates the work of all the Departments? Or is it, perhaps, handed out under contract for other people to do?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, wishes, I can give him a list of all the Statutes over the last 20 or 30 years with the various definitions, but I think it may be better if I wrote to him. On the other

427
hand, one example where fish farming is included is the Farm and Horticultural Development Scheme 1975.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, are the Government aware that as the law stands at present, veterinary surgeons are precluded from giving advice and other professional help to fish and fish farmers? What do the Government intend to do about it?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there are a number of issues which we are at present discussing with the industry. This would be one of them. We shall be able to legislate when we have considered these various points which, of course, cover a great many Departments.

ANGOLA: CUBAN TROOPS
2.45 p.m.
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 representations they have made within the United Nations organisation since February 1976, when the United Kingdom officially recognised the present Government of Angola, concerning the continued presence in that country of Cuban troops equipped and transported there by the USSR.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in a debate in the Security Council on 31st March, Her Majesty's Representative made clear Her Majesty's Government's view that the continued presence of foreign troops anywhere in Southern Africa will make it more difficult to find peaceful solutions to the problems of the region.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, does not the continued presence of large numbers of Cuban troops in Southern Africa add to the dangers of enlarging the conflict already existing in that area? As six months have elapsed since the debate which the noble Lord referred to, would it not be a good idea to take a fresh initiative?—because no nation is more interested in peace in that area than the United Kingdom.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I agree. So long as there are foreign troops in any part of Africa, and certainly in Southern and Central Africa, the prospects of peace, stability and ordered progress will be jeopardised. We have lost no opportunity, since the Angolan situation developed in February, I of pointing this out to all concerned, and we shall continue to do so.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain to the House why it is that those who are so vociferous, both here and abroad, in complaining about the foreign troops in other people's countries, were silent on this occasion?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord might address that question to those concerned, who could best answer him. I am bound to say that I agree with the fundamental assumptions of his supplementary.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the House is always very grateful for the full and courteous replies given to us by the noble Lord? Does he recall that at the end of June in the Security Council, the question arose of allowing Angola admission to the United Nations? Would the noble Lord confirm that the United Kingdom Government voted in favour of allowing, the entry of Angola to the United Nations, but that the United States of America vetoed the entry because of the presence of foreign troops? Therefore, I should like to ask the Government why the United Kingdom Representative did not support the United States on this issue.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, because we took a different view from the United States. One could dilate on the comparative excellence of the United Kingdom approach; the excellence is not in opposition to the very good, but is slightly different. I cannot answer for the United States Government, certainly not at the present time. We will have to wait for a few days before they can answer effectively for themselves.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, reporting officially that the United Nations at any rate recognised

429
that there are foreign troops in Angola, and in recognising it, they are admitting they recognise foreign troops on other territory and are not prepared to do anything about it? Is not that the only message we can take from what the noble Lord has just said?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, so far as I completely followed the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that is his assumption. I am not prepared to say whether I agree or disagree with it at the moment. I should like to study it further.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is there any confirmation of the reports that some Angolan troops are now deployed in Mozambique? Are there reports from our diplomatic representatives in that area which can either confirm or deny this?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no information to confirm that suggestion. We hear rumours, but there is no hard evidence on this.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, are the Government in this matter able to use with non-aligned countries the argument that not only the presence of Cuba in that area, but the existence of Cuban troops in Angola, damages the whole concept of non-alignment?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, indeed it does. As I have said, we lose no opportunity of pointing this out to everyone concerned, especially the non-aligned countries.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: NOVEMBER BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, a Statement is being made today in another place about the business to be taken in the EEC Council of Ministers during November. As usual, I will arrange for the Statement to be made available in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about business to be taken in the Council of the European Community during November. The monthly forecast for November was deposited yesterday.
"The Heads of Government of the Member States will meet in The Hague on the 29th and 30th of November. There is no formal agenda for these meetings, but I would fully expect that Fisheries will be discussed. We shall also ensure that EEC relations with Japan are discussed. We expect Heads of Government to consider the Tindemans Report, and the terms of reference for a review of the Commission which its new President is to be asked to undertake.
"At present 7 meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for November. Transport Ministers will meet on the 4th; Finance: Ministers on the 8th and 22nd: Development Ministers on the 8th; Foreign Ministers on the 15th and 16th; Agriculture Ministers on the 22nd and 23rd and Budget Ministers on the 23rd. There will also be a meeting of Education Ministers on the 29th of November.
"At the Transport Council, Ministers will be exchanging views on issues relating to maritime transport. They may also consider roadworthiness tests; a minimum level of training for road transport drivers; adjustments of national taxation systems in relation to commercial vehicles and a progress report on the draft third Social Regulation.
"Finance Ministers at the 8th of November Council will have their usual monthly discussions of the economic situation in the Community. They will also consider the Duisenberg proposals on exchange rate co-ordination and economic convergence.
"At the Finance Council on the 22nd of November, Ministers will consider the adoption of the annual report on the economic situation in the Community and of the fourth medium term economic policy programme.
"At the Development Council Ministers will discuss financial and technical aid by the Community to non-associated developing countries. They will also consider the harmonisation of development policies within the Community.
"Ministers at the Foreign Affairs Council will continue their study of the Tindemans Report, and will consider progress of the work in the four Commissions and the overall negotiating objectives for the final phase of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation. Ministers will also discuss the internal and external aspects of the Common Fisheries Policy, the Generalised Preference Scheme for 1977, the uniform passport, and relations between the Community and the CMEA, Iran, Greece, Yugoslavia, Turkey and Israel. They will have before them a report on negotiations between the Community and the Mashraq countries.
"Agriculture Ministers will consider the Commission's proposal for reducing surpluses in the dairy sector. They are also expected to discuss proposals for a potatoes regime, measures for improving agricultural structure and marketing, the water content of frozen chickens, and Community animal health legislation.
"At the Budget Council Ministers will consider amendments and notifications proposed by the European Assembly to the draft 1977 Community budget.
"Education Ministers will consider the Education Committee's Report on the transition from school to working life".

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
2.50 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Schedule 3 [Grounds for possession of dwelling-house subject to protected occupancy or statutory tenancy.]:
Lord BURNHAM Lord BURNHAM moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 39, line 25, leave out ("as regards proximity to place of work").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this Amendment is to seek clarification of the way in which the Bill is intended to operate in certain circumstances. I am certain that some Amendment is needed, but my own is not necessarily the right one, or for that matter the only one necessary. Although the Amendment is tabled to Case I of Schedule 3, the same words "as regards proximity to place of work" occur in Case II on Page 40, at line 42. If I am right about the need for an amendment to Case I, Case II may also require to be dealt with. As I understand it, the intention of the Bill is that when a key employee in agriculture leaves his employment the occupier of the holding—that is to say, the farmer—should be able to recover possession of the dwelling-house, either by himself offering alternative accommodation or, provided that he can satisfy the provisions of Clause 29(1), with the help of the local housing authority.
However, if the former employee refuses the alternative accommodation offered, it would be necessary, as I understand it, for application to be made to a court, and that application would be made under Case I if the farmer were making the offer and under Case II if the offer were made by the housing authority. The court is required to take into account, among
432
other things, proximity to place of work, and I should like to read the words which occur in Paragraph 3:
"The accommodation must be reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards proximity to place of work."
It then goes on to say "and either" various considerations with which I am not dealing. But the words "must be reasonably suitable" seem to me to take away virtually all discretion from the court except in so far as they can stretch the word "reasonably" into unreasonable lengths.
The phrase includes no articles and no possessive pronoun so it is not clear to me whether "proximity to place of work" means proximity to the former place of work or proximity to a place of work—that is to say, a place where jobs are or should be available—or proximity to the new place of work selected by the employee who has just left his job. Unless it means proximity to the former place of work it is highly unlikely that the farmer himself will be able to offer alternative accommodation and the matter will fall to be dealt with under Case II, where the accommodation would be provided by a housing authority.
I should now like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 29(3)(d) on page 23 of the Bill, at lines 15 to 17. There the expression "housing authority concerned" is defined as—and I quote—
"the local authority having functions under Part V of the Housing Act 1957 in relation to that area.
As I read it, "that area" can only mean the area in which the applicant—that is to say the farmer—has his holding. What therefore happens if the employee accepts a post in the area of a different housing authority, possibly some distance away, but nevertheless refuses to leave his former house in spite of the offer of alternative accommodation in that area?
There are a number of possible reasons why he might take this line and maintain to the court that the accommodation offered was not "in reasonable proximity" to his new place of work. There must be an area of distance where the court might take a view one way or another, but beyond a certain distance it seems quite possible that the court might uphold the objection. If this were to happen and the Bill remained as at present drafted, an impasse would be reached and the

433
farmer might never be able to recover possession of the dwelling house, in spite of the fact that he had satisfied all the provisions of Clause 29(1).
In passing, I should like to mention a consideration which only occurred to me on the way here. It is, what would happen if the employee decided to take a job in Scotland? This is not altogether a fanciful idea. There is a very prosperous and efficient agriculture industry in Scotland and the worker might even decide that it was worth living in lodgings in order to go and work there, building oil rigs in return for the very high wages offered. In that case no housing authority in Scotland would have any responsibility for exercising any endeavour to rehouse him because the Bill does not cover Scotland. Yet he could reasonably maintain to a court that nobody had offered him alternative accommodation in reasonable proximity to his new place of work. There does not seem to be any machinery in the Bill for transferring with any degree of urgency the responsibility for housing the worker to the housing authority of the area to which he has decided to move, and I think there should be.
In this connection it is perhaps worth remembering that the worker could well have moved into the area of another agricultural wages committee. I believe there are 31 such areas in England and Wales. It would logically be an agricultural dwelling house advisory committee from his former area which would advise whether possession of the house was necessary in the interests of agriculture, but there would be little point in their reporting to the local housing authority. They would have to report to the housing authority to which he had moved. I assume this would be a matter that could be dealt with in directions to be issued by the Minister, but I submit very strongly that the housing authority which is to be responsible for housing a worker must be designated in the Bill.
I believe there is here a genuine problem. My Amendment is designed to make it easier for the farmer to solve his own problems and I think the Bill would be improved if this Amendment were accepted. However, in the light of the views already expressed by the Government it might be thought better to amend, for example, the definition of "the housing
434
authority concerned" to include any housing authority into whose area the worker might decide to go.
In the Government's reply I should be most grateful if it could be made clear whether "the housing authority concerned" as at present defined means only the authority in the worker's former area; secondly, which of the three possible meanings apply to the phrase "proximity to place of work"; thirdly, how the procedures envisaged will operate in the case where an employee moves from the area of one housing authority to that of another; and, finally, any observations that the Government may have on what is expected to happen it' the worker elects to move to Scotland. I beg to move.
3.10 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: I wonder whether I could come in at this stage because I think the noble Lord has wandered rather from his Amendment or there has been some misunderstanding. We are amending the provision regarding the area, which is Part I of Schedule 3 and it is Case I. This is where alternative accommodation is not provided or arranged by the housing authority. So we are not, as far as his Amendment is concerned, discussing housing provided by a local authority; we are discussing housing provided by the farmer himself. So to lake his example of Scotland, it would be very difficult for somebody to live in an area in the South of England and travel to Scotland every day to work. I do not think Concorde has yet gone to that extent. This Part really deals with the question of alternative accommodation not provided by a housing authority, and the Amendment as the noble Lord has drafted it will have a much wider effect than I think he intends. If it were carried, the result would be that the alternative accommodation would have to be suitable to all the needs of the family.
Some farmers, like some landlords under the Rent Act 1968, may own property that is widely scattered and could offer alternative accommodation a considerable distance away. The farmer might have a farm in Scotland and he could offer a cottage there. This obviously would be unworkable. It would be impractical and unfair, in such circumstances, to expect the tenant to move to that new

435
house. I am sure the noble Lord would agree with that. That is why the 1968 Act and this Bill include this requirement.
I also noted the point that the farm worker might leave his job on the farm and take a job in a town some distance from the farm, and he might refuse to move on the grounds that the alternative cottage was not suitable "as regards proximity to place of work". Incidentally, this means proximity to his new place of work. I am advised that these fears are unfounded; that the court would regard the proximity to place of work test as being satisfied if the alternative accommodation was at least as suitable as the ex-worker's present house. Of course, if his present house was absolutely next door, then the discretion would be taken wider.
The Amendment—and I think the noble Lord is probably not aware of this—could have the opposite effect to the one he intends. If he takes out these words "as regards proximity to place of work", the courts might well hold that the Schedule, as amended, covered all needs. If you take these words out, you go down to "suitable … to the needs of the tenant and his family", including proximity to place of work. So by taking out the words the noble Lord would not have achieved what he wants, but would also have enlarged the provision. I find it quite understandable in a Bill of this sort for one to get into the area of local authority alternative accommodation, to which this Case does not refer at all. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I think we are in a real difficulty here because we are dealing with a Bill based on another Act: that is, the Rent Act 1968. I refer to Part IV of the Rent Act 1968. Here we have a repeat of this statement. The problem is this. The Government have presented us with this Bill, and Schedule 3 is based on the Rent Act 1968. I think there has been a very great hazard here, because once this is altered in certain particulars immediately confusion arises. Your Lordships will have seen already that although the cases are analogous and in some cases almost precisely similar, they are not absolutely alike.
436
I would draw your Lordships' attention to a particular problem which was brought out in evidence by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, before the Renton Committee, Cmnd. Paper 6053. On page 83 are these words:
"Lord Gardiner, in his evidence to us, complained of the inconvenience of not being able to see at a glance from the Schedule what was to be left out, and suggested that the material to be omitted should be printed in distinguishing type. We agree with the suggestion and we recommend that it should be followed in the future."
As we understand it at the moment, the Government have in mind to bring in a consolidation Act before very long, in which this Act would be consolidated with earlier Rent Acts, and here we have a major problem of draftsmanship. I am not surprised that my noble friend has had difficulty in drafting the Amendment, and, if I may say so, I think he has achieved a great deal in so doing up to date. But I think the Government have presented themselves and your Lordships' House with an almost insoluble problem.
Lord JANNER: I have listened carefully to both sides of the argument, and, frankly, I just cannot understand how an Amendment of this sort could possibly be accepted. It is perfectly clear that "proximity to the place of work" means proximity to the place where the person is going to work, and the court has to take into consideration whether the accommodation is suitable for that purpose. If this Amendment were carried, it would have just the opposite effect to what the noble Lord wishes. Is it not perfectly clear that alternative accommodation, if it is considered suitable at all, must take into consideration the proximity to the place where the person works? I, for the life of me, cannot see how there can possibly be any argument against it. I hope that in the circumstances the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment. If I may say so with due respect to everybody, it is a real waste of time to argue a point like this which is so perfectly obvious.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: May I intervene, so long as I am not going to be shut out again by the Front Bench? Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, I was unwilling to be shut out: and we are going to clarify the rules and conventions in this House fairly soon. May I follow the argument of the noble Lord,

437
Lord Janner. I speak as an agriculturist, not, unlike the Leader of the Labour Party and various other members of it, owning farms, but just as an organiser of farm workers. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, it is not clear whether the words that are in the Bill mean appropriate to the work that he was doing or to the work he is going to do. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, may shuffle his arms, because that is how he and his family earn a great living. So long as the words are not clear, there is an enormous future for lawyers.
Lord JANNER: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? If I put that kind of argument before the court, or any other member of my family or any other member of the legal profession put it forward, they would have very short shrift.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: As I understand I am to be described tonight as one who might have been a great lawyer, if I am to believe my morning Daily Telegraph, with great respect may I ask what is the relevance of the words in the Bill? Being an agricultural workers' organiser, I am against stretching too far this argument about cottages that go with jobs. But, as the Prime Minister must know, and various other leading farmers in the leadership of the Labour Party must know, there are certain jobs with which houses have to go. I am all in favour of putting the onus upon the local authorities to find a house for the fellow who falls out with his boss or whose boss falls out with the fellow. But, then, rather like the noble Lord who moved the Amendment was saying, the words in the Bill do not seem to make it clear. What is it we then take into account—proximity to the job that he is leaving or being fired from, or proximity to the job that he is now going to?
When I am not in London, I happen to live in Sussex—not far from Hailsham, either. But when a problem arises and a fellow goes somewhere else, whose proximity to whom are we talking about? The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is a farmer; the Prime Minister is a farmer. The Labour Party is riddled with farmers now, and they all have chaps who can tend the stock at the moment when the stock needs tending. I simply agree with
438
the noble Lord opposite that the words are not really very clear. What happens when one falls out with the other, and you need the house because otherwise the stock does not get tended? It is not clear. Now Lady Alma Birk is a much greater dock authority than I am. She has told me that about five times. I would not think she knows a stock handling gear even if she saw it. She may now be a great agricultural expert, and maybe she knows about stock handling better than I do. It begins to sound to me as though she knows everything better than I do. But I am bound to say that unless we get a better answer than this, all we are doing is storing up for Janner, Barnett, Greville, and partners, et cetera, situations that Judge Salmon is going to have to answer in due course.
Lord JANNER: Thank you very much for the advertisement. I think after 57 years of it I am bound to tell the noble Lord that when a person has left a job he is no longer at that work, and, obviously, the clause itself refers to the work which he is engaged in at the time when the application is made. I hope he will not mind this intervention. I am not proposing to charge him a fee, either.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: If he did it would be fraud, because that was not really very good advice. It is not a question of when the fellow leaves the job; it is when his employer decides he does not want the fellow in the job. I think that the words have to be drawn—we are enjoying ourselves at the moment, but let me come to the point—a good deal more tightly than this. I would be surprised if the noble Lord, Lord Collison, did not agree with me that they had to be drawn a good deal more tightly than this. When fellows in certain occupations which can be easily specified either decide of their own volition or the employers, then something has to be provided for them.
Where I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is in leaving the matter as widely open as it is. Where I think I agree with the noble Lord opposite is in wanting to draw it more tightly. Where I think I would be surprised if I did not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Collison, is in limiting the areas to which this

439
applies, and we make it clear that it applies only when alternative accommodation is provided, which puts the thing firmly in the court of the local authority. I do not think that anybody could pretend that the words in the Bill as they are now drawn provide for any of those three things. May I say to the noble, industrial agricultural expert Lady Alma Birk that it might be just as well if she went back and consulted her advisers again.
3.17 p.m.
Lord COLLISON: I am not going to take issue with my noble and respected old friend Lord George-Brown as to who best represents the agricultural workers. Neither am I going to make a Second Reading speech. But on the point at issue, whatever may be the legal arguments about the use of these words, it must be patently clear to anybody who can read English that what is meant when one uses the words "proximity to his employment" is the employment to which he goes. I am in entire accord with my noble friend Lord Janner when he says that, if we are going to provide the agricultural worker with suitable alternative accommodation, which is the criterion we have always asked for, then we must take proximity to the man's new employment into account.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: Would my noble friend forgive me for intervening one moment before he sits down? Supposing the fellow has not gone to any new employment, which, in the case of an agricultural worker, is not impossible to suppose because perhaps nowhere else offers him work, what do these words then mean?
Lord COLLISON: If he has not been offered alternative employment or he has not got it, then the question of proximity does not arise, and a suitable house provided by a local authority, or any other suitable house, would be satisfactory. If he had got employment elsewhere, or in the locality which is near to his old job, then again a suitable house provided by the local authority, or any other suitable house, would be quite suitable and quite satisfactory.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: We seem to be spending rather a long time on this
440
point. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, that perhaps he might withdraw the Amendment at this stage. If he wishes, he can pursue the point and table an Amendment on Report to insert the words "to a new place of work", which would seem the most sensible course to take.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Mountgarret, because in my view there is considerable substance in this point. I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, was rather unfair to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham. It does not matter whether the provision applies to the local authority or to the efforts of the farmer himself to find alternative accommodation; if he is saddled with a provision like this which means that while a man is willing to remain in the house which the farmer needs because of its proximity to the stock on the farm, it is rather hard on the farmer. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, suggested that the words must surely mean "his new place of work", but the alternative is the man's staying in the house in which he is living. It is certainly very hard if the man in the house can plead that the farmer cannot find him a house near the place of work which lie has selected somewhere else. In my view this provision applies not only to the local authority accommodation but to the private accommodation he is trying to obtain.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Apart from the principle involved, this is bad drafting. Why confuse the issue by adding unnecessary words? Ministers keep replying to Amendments by saying that the words which we propose to insert are unnecessary. I should have thought that the words "the accommodation must be reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family" are all that are required. To add extra words only causes ambiguity, makes for confusion and does not get us any nearer to a satisfactory conclusion.
Baroness YOUNG: Perhaps the Minister will look at this matter again. Unlike some of my noble friends, I have a certain amount of sympathy with the point of view which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, expressed, because these words are taken directly from a Schedule to the

441
Rent Act 1968. However, my reason for asking the Government to examine the matter is that this particular part of Schedule 3, the Case 1 case, is the case where the farmer finds alternative accommodation for the farm worker. My guess is that the whole Schedule is put in rather like the similar Schedule, Schedule 3(4), to the Rent Act 1968 as a sort of triumph of hope over experience, because I imagine that there will hardly ever be any cases where a farmer will himself be able to find suitable similar rented accommodation. Therefore the whole responsibility will fall on the local authority, which is the principle underlying the Bill.
However, it is surely in the interest of the Government, in the interest of the farmer, just as it is in the interest of the farm worker, that it should be made as easy as possible for the farmer to find alternative suitable accommodation, and it is "suitable" that we are talking about; nobody is talking about something that is unsuitable. It would help the situation to tighten the words up so that they are not left as they are at present. Although the words appear in the Rent Act 1968 the provision is ambiguous. I do not think anybody will argue that that Act has been an unqualified success, and in order to help what will be a very difficult situation in agriculture I should have thought it was worth the Government's while to examine this point.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: In an agricultural area it would be possible for any agricultural worker to find a job at a nearby farm, so near to the other farm that the accommodation he is in would be perfectly suitable for him, although it might be a perfectly unsuitable arrangement for the farmer he is leaving. If somebody wants to leave and can find work approximately near, which might be the next door farm, in all probability he would not want to leave his cottage, which would make it very awkward for the farmer who would he trying to find somebody to replace him. This ambiguity exists and it seems that we could have a great deal of trouble in an agricultural area where so much accommodation belonging to different farms is quite close together.
Baroness BIRK: The discussion has wandered rather wide on this Amendment,
442
but I must say that I fail to see the ambiguity here. I agree that one can find many examples of ambiguity in legislation, but this provision seems to me to be perfectly straightforward. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, raised the question of consolidation. I absolutely agree that there is need for consolidation and I hope that we can discuss further how and when that can be facilitated, but not on this Amendment. As he is aware, it is not intended to consolidate this Bill so far as the Rent Act consolidation is concerned.
Modesty prevents me from agreeing with all that my noble friend Lord George-Brown said about me. He did not appear to have the Amendment or the Bill in front of him, because if he had read the whole of the provision in the measure, he would have seen that what he was trying to do—as I tried to explain to the noble Lord, Lord Burnham, who must be rather amazed by what has resulted from his Amendment—would not be achieved by the Amendment.
I think the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, is met by the reference to "the interests of efficient agriculture, "to which we shall come later, where the ADHACs come in to decide whether it is necessary for the farmer to keep the cottage for an incoming worker; so the noble Baroness was really raising a different point. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked me to look at the matter again. I suggest that if she and other noble Lords examine the matter and take the relevant words out of the provision, they will find that what I said in my original reply to Lord Burnham is true; that by deleting those words the whole thing becomes extremely extended and, rather than making it clearer, makes it more imprecise. I would therefore ask Lord Burnham to withdraw the Amendment, and I think he will agree that we have debated the subject at some length.
Lord BURNHAM: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her reply. She seemed to be in some disagreement with her noble friends, who were quite clear that what the measure referred to was proximity to the new place of work. I understood the noble Baroness, when she first replied, to say that the court would take the view that it was reasonably

443
suitable if it was not much worse situated than where he was living at the present time.
Baroness BIRK: I said it was not much further from his new place of work; I was always clear that it was his new place of work because, as my noble friend rightly pointed out, the man had already left that employment, so one could not talk about proximity to a place of work which he had either left or from which he had been dismissed.
Lord BURNHAM: I do not think there is much difference of opinion between us on this matter. If the man had moved 100 miles it would seem that he could still maintain to the court that whatever he had been offered was not within reasonable proximity to his place of work. I have no pride of authorship in my Amendment, not being a lawyer; but if what the Minister says is the case—that the court would take the view that a dwelling, at roughly the same distance from where he had gone would be suitable—I am sure the case is met. I feel, however, that sooner or later, maybe in years to come, somebody will ask, "What is written in the Act?" and will not ask what was said in this Committee on a certain occasion. I should have felt happier, therefore, if the meaning had been clarified. I am really looking for clarification rather than questioning what the Bill actually does. In the circumstances, however, I beg, leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.29 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 40, line 9, leave out ("clerk to") and insert ("proper officer of").
The noble Baroness said: I will, with the permission of the Committee, speak at the same time to Amendment No. 90. These are really quite minor drafting Amendments. The two references to "clerk to the authority" in the Bill derive from similar references in the Rent Act 1968, as originally enacted. Paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 29 to the Local Government Act 1972, however, provided that references of this kind in
444
existing legislation, including the Rent Act, should be construed as references to the proper officer of the authority. As the proper officer may not be the clerk—he may be called the chief executive or the lord high executioner, or some other title—these Amendments therefore correct the references in the Bill in order to accord with the Local Government Act, 1972. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am glad to commend what is really a drafting Amendment. It is very nice to feel that the Government are keeping up to date on something.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.31 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 40, line 15, leave out from beginning to end of line 45.
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 30. Under the Bill as it now stands, if the housing authority or the farmer offers suitable alternative accommodation, it is open to the tenant to refuse to vacate his existing house. If the tenant took this action, the farmer could then apply to the court for possession, but the court, as in cases under the Rent Act, 1968, will make an order for possession only if it considers this to be reasonable. In fact, the court can exercise its discretion. The purpose of this Amendment (should the Committee agree to it) is to move Case 2 in Part I of Schedule 3 into Part II of Schedule 3.
The effect will be to remove from the court their power of discretion applying to Case 2. In fact, Case 2 will then be in the same category as Cases 11, 12 and 13 and similar to eight cases in the Rent Acts of 1968 and 1974. The Committee will note that Case 2 applies only to the tenant who has been offered alternative accommodation by the housing authority and not by the farmer or private landlord. The reason for this apparent discrimination is important, and I very much hope that I can persuade the Government of its validity, which is as follows. If the Government believe and state—as has been repeated many times in your Lordships' House and in another

445
place—that they accept a very real rehousing obligation under Clause 30, and in particular if their phrase, "best endeavours", means anything at all, then surely they should put action into their words and make it mandatory on the courts to order possession when the local authority offers suitable accommodation. I hope that the Government will accept this.
I suggest that this is a particularly helpful suggestion, because it is identical to an Amendment tabled on 15th July by the Minister's honourable friends Mr. Armstrong and Mr. Strang in another place but for some reason unknown was not moved. I feel sure that I do not have to remind the noble Baroness that her honourable friend Mr. Armstrong, in Standing Committee K, on 8th June, spoke sympathetically in favour of this Amendment, but as I hope that the noble Baroness will also be in favour I will not delay the Committee by repeating what her honourable friend said.
I must reinforce my case by letting the noble Baroness into a secret. The farming community believes the words "best endeavours" to be legalistic political claptrap. I should not like to tell her what I think, because I do not think it would be a Parliamentary phrase. I hope that the Government will be able to prove me and the farming community wrong in what we think the words "best endeavours" mean. They have an opportunity to make a first very small step forward in proving us wrong by accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I much appreciate the motivation behind the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley. I quite agree that this is difficult because it is one on which there is a very delicate balance, and the noble Lord is trying to achieve by it something that basically it would be difficult to agree with. This is to change "discretionary" to "mandatory" so that the court would be compelled to make an order for possession even if it was not satisfied that it was reasonable to do so. It is probable that there would not be many cases, but there could be some exceptional cases. It was these that finally tipped the balance in another place, and the noble Lord is
446
quite right in saying that an Amendment was tabled for Report stage here which, in fact, was not moved.
Because Amendments were tabled it is quite cleat, as I have admitted, that there is this extremely difficult balance. I am glad the noble Lord spared my delicate ears in telling me what he and the farmers thought about "best endeavours", but there could be exceptional cases where it might be unreasonable to make an order; for instance, in the case of a farm worker's widow who perhaps had only recently been bereaved, or of a farm worker who was seriously ill and possibly in hospital. I agree that these are probably rare cases, but all one is saying is that one is leaving the court to use discretion in what would be an odd case. One has to have confidence, as I think we all do, in the courts of this country.
Having made this point and to put this in perspective, I should emphasise that in practice in the majority of cases retaining or removing the court's discretion is likely to make little difference. For example, under the Rent Act, in the first part of 1975 the court granted orders for possession in 98 per cent. of cases based on mandatory grounds and in nearly 97 per cent. of cases based on discretionary grounds. There is a pattern established and it seems reasonable to expect this pattern to be followed. As I said, I appreciate what the noble Lord is trying to achieve in this Amendment. Having been through it myself and not relying only on the decision taken in another place, I agree that on balance the danger for the exceptional cases makes out a case for leaving this in the discretionary area rather than putting it in the mandatory area.
Baroness YOUNG: May I ask the noble Baroness whether she does not feel that this is something which she ought to look at again. Not only has my noble friend quoted what happened in another place where a similar Amendment was put down, but, as I understand it, she is saying that in approximately 97 per cent. of discretionary cases the court rules, and we are talking about a very few hard cases. She quoted the case of a widow. Certainly, this is a hard case, but it has to be seen against the

447
background of the timetable on which these things would take place. After all, this is not going to happen in a week; it is, inevitably, going to take place over some months. It is going to be a genuine offer by a local authority for suitable alternative accommodation with all that that implies—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, would keep his colleagues up to date if he was not completely satisfied with what that meant.
From the Government's point of view, I should have thought that there was everything to be said for trying to meet what I think is a reasonable request to meet very real fears. After all, legislation works much better when people genuinely believe that everybody is trying to make it work as well as possible. Here, we have a case that is entirely within the terms of the Bill and entirely what the Government want, which is what is meant by saying that the local authority will undertake to rehouse. When the local authority has made a serious offer, the court can intervene and say that it is not good enough. I should have thought that this was a point on which the Government could have met the case and that it would have helped to create just the kind of trust that will be necessary to make the Bill work properly.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, ought to look at this again, on purely practical grounds. I accept absolutely her point that there may be hard cases—a very few—where the discretion of the court may be helpful, but I suggest that the times in which we live make it more likely that adding this extra chance to delay having to leave a house will be likely to encourage people to use the courts, because there is just a chance that they can persuade a court that there are acceptable reasons that have not been taken into account, whereas, without this, they would accept the decision of the housing authority.
We are living at a time when Citizens Advice Bureaux, all sorts of unofficial lawyers, newspaper columns, radio and television investigations will all tell people about the reasonable chance of the courts exercising discretion. When it comes to the court, the court of course takes the proper decision and I have every confidence
448
that they will continue to do this. But we ought to recognise that we are living in an age when people will be aware of these words and will use them to their ultimate. I believe that there will be more cases where people will use what I call the "ultimate" and therefore delay coming to a conclusion which is in everybody's interest than there will be hard cases that have not been taken into account by the local authority. It is a purely practical assessment that I am making and I believe that this is an instance where, if the reasonable discretion is taken away from the courts, a discretion that has already been used by the housing authority as is laid down here, it may be that we could arrive at what we all want more speedily and more satisfactorily than by giving the trouble maker—and many tenants are trouble makers—an opportunity to use every word there to delay the administration of justice. It could well be that, recognising the age in which we live when all this "sidekick" advice is available, it would be a good thing to support the housing authority by making this mandatory when it goes to court.
Lord JANNER: I am loath to intervene again because we have taken a terrible amount of time over matters that seem to me to be fairly obvious. I entirely agree with what my noble friend has said in regard to the fears that people have. Why are they afraid of the courts? Is our court system not one of the best in the world? If there are exceptional cases, is it not reasonable that the court should make a decision on these matters? It is admitted that there may be exceptional cases. I am quite certain that there will be very few, but in those cases where there is doubt, surely we have sufficient faith in our courts to allow them to make a decision. I cannot for the life of me understand why there is all this worry about these matters. Look at some of the magistrates among your Lordships on both sides of the House. Have we no faith in them? Here we have a court, something that is admired by the whole world. I think, frankly that this is pushing it too far and I hope that the noble Lord will see his way to withdrawing the Amendment.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: One small point that I should like to make—and I speak knowing more about Scotland than

449
about England—is that, though I do not in any way disagree with the reputation of our courts, they are unbelievably slow. It is a fact of life, at any rate in my part of the world, that key agricultural workers are generally on a six month period of notice to leave. So one has six months and if, at the end of that time, the worker suddenly says that he will not leave, it will probably be another six months or a year before one gets possession of the cottage. This is exceedingly awkward if the worker in question is in a key position and is looking after stock.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord, Lord Janner, said with his usual charm that he could not see why we were getting in such a fuss about this because it all seemed to him to be perfectly simple. That is a view which he is entirely entitled to take and I should merely like to try to explain to him why we are fussed. I think that I could perhaps put it in the form of a practical example because I feel that that will be slightly easier to understand. I ask the noble Baroness whether I am right in believing that the situation at the moment is that, where a person has been offered suitable alternative accommodation, he may say: "I do not think that this is suitable alternative accommodation. I do not like it because the room is not big enough or there is not enough room for my children. Therefore, this accommodation is not suitable enough for the operation of this part of the Bill to come into practice. "It is at that juncture that the landlord goes to court and the situation of which the court has to seize itself—and, as I understand it, the only point that they are obliged to comment upon—is whether or not the alternative accommodation is in fact suitable accommodation. If it is, the court would, under the Amendment of my noble friend, be in a position to say, "You have been offered alternative accommodation. We believe that this is suitable alternative accommodation and therefore the Bill should work and you should go into it."
As I understand it, under the Bill as it stands, having said that, the court may go on to say that, though it thinks that the accommodation is a suitable alternative, notwithstanding that and for other reasons, the Bill should not operate and the tenant can stay where he is. This is giving two bites at the cherry, which is
450
totally different. I believe that the Amendment of my noble friend is designed to say that the whole purpose of the court is to decide whether the alternative accommodation is or is not suitable, and that, having decided that, the Bill should be allowed to operate.
Baroness BIRK: I am grateful for the moderation with which noble Lords have put their points and I can see the various strands there. I appreciate the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, but I do not entirely go along with him about people knowing their rights. I believe that it is quite right and proper that people should be aware of their rights, since for so long so many people have not been. That is one of the troubles. One suggestion that I do not believe I have ever heard made is that farm workers will do anything rather than avoid court proceedings. One of the reasons for the necessity for the Bill is—and this is why the figures for possession orders do not really give a true picture—that so many people want to keep away from the courts and have nothing to do with the law.
I thought that my noble friend Lord Janner was absolutely right. So far as the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is concerned, I feel that he is making a division where there is none: all we are saying is that it remains exactly the same. We are saying that the court has discretion to say: "This may be suitable accommodation in all the respects that the local authority has said, but there may be exceptional cases. "They would have to be exceptional. This is not establishing different criteria for the general suitability. I believe that the examples that the noble Earl gave would not fall within this because if such things as the size of the rooms were put forward, the courts—going on the evidence of the past and of what the courts have done in both mandatory and discretionary cases—would certainly consider that the accommodation was suitable. It is only for these very odd cases.
As I said at the beginning—and I meant it—it is a difficult balance to take, but having thought about the matter before, and having listened very carefully to all that noble Lords opposite have said, I still feel that the position should remain

451
as it is in the Bill; that is, that the courts should be given this area of discretion, which as we have seen will be brought into use probably very seldom. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: We are grateful to the noble Baroness for the information she has given and I am sure that we shall all—particularly my noble friend—study it carefully to see whether it is a matter to which we should come back at the Report stage. But can the noble Baroness explain one point about which I am not at all clear? When the landlord and the occupier of the house go to the court when suitable alternative accommodation has been offered, surely the decision of the court should be whether or not that accommodation is sufficiently suitable an alternative for this part of the Bill to operate. What other circumstances will the court take into account before it says, "Yes, the suitable alternative accommodation has been offered, but there are various reasons why notwithstanding that you should stay where you are. "I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could explain that.
Baroness BIRK: As I explained originally, I understand that it would be where there are exceptional circumstances attached to the particular case, not to the accommodation; the accommodation itself would be suitable. I accept the point which the noble Baroness made about the widow, where there is a lapse of time. But the court may say, "In this rather extraordinary case we do not feel that an order should be granted at this time If I am wrong I shall certainly write to the noble Earl, but I do not think I am wrong in saying that it would apply to the actual physical accommodation.
Earl FERRERS: In other words, they might say that the farm worker's wife has had a heart attack a week ago and therefore it would be unreasonable to put them in this alternative accommodation. It is that type of example, is it?
Baroness BIRK: Exactly.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I am sorry to come back to this matter again, but one has had an experience of this type
452
in relation to the ordinary Rent Acts. If between the housing authority offering what is correct accommodation the tenant's father dies and his mother, left alone, has to come and live with them, it could well be that the extra numbers in the family would, in the eyes of the court, make it unreasonable to ask them to move to the new place which could not accommodate the tenant's mother whom for very good humanitarian reasons has to come and live with the others. If such circumstances applied, they would form a very good point for the court to take into account. But I assure the noble Baroness that if that type of criteria were allowed by the court, the number of mothers who for humanitarian reasons had to come and live with others in order to hang on to the accommodation they wanted to hang on to, will be legion. It is that kind of an opening which this type of discretion would give. It is not a case of questioning the courts. I have sat as a magistrate for 30 years, and I support all that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said about the courts' objectivity and their desire to do the right thing. But these are the kind of problems which people who have to administer legislation do not necessarily want because the circumstances could change. They could change in such a way that a phoney situation could be manufactured to enable people to get what they want. I suggest that there would be more of those kind of cases than of the hardships cases which the noble Baroness quite properly took into account in her first reply.
Baroness BIRK: I take the point which the noble Lord has made, but, I too, am a magistrate and I think he has less confidence in the courts than I have. One is used to phoney cases sometimes being brought. I agree with him about that. But the court would have to find that it was unreasonable not to make the order; so the case would have to be proved without doubt to the court. I do not know whether the case of the mother-in-law is such a good example, because I do not know whether the position would work out in such a case, even if there was a new house. But the court would look into the circumstances and it would, quite rightly, be suspicious of circumstances which it thought had been brought about merely to evade what it considered to be the normal course of justice and the

453
question of finding suitable accommodation. The kind of case I have in mind was exactly that given as an example by the noble Earl; he got it bang on. That is the kind of exception we are talking about.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for being so kind to me over the Amendment, but I hope that she will not think that I am looking a gift horse in the mouth when I tell her that I think she is quite wrong. First, we are not making this a precedent. I have been told that there are three other cases in this Bill and eight other cases in the Rent Acts of 1968 and 1974 where there is a case for the court not having discretion. Secondly—and I shall be very quick—it must be remembered that when one goes to a court for possession, first, it has taken a long time to get there, as has already been mentioned. When one gets there, the court never says that a occupier must get out tomorrow. It nearly always gives 14 days, or 28 days; indeed it has given five weeks, or perhaps months, as my noble friend says. So there is not a question of this baby being born; there have probably been half a dozen babies born by the time we have got there. Therefore, I do not see the hardship case.
Lastly, and most important, is this point which I want to leave with the noble Baroness. If this case is not put into the mandatory cases of the court having no discretion with the other cases mentioned, we shall not believe that anything is meant by "best endeavours". I want the noble Baroness to think about this, because this is a matter which is worrying us. I hope she will realise that I am trying to be constructive. I am really worried about "best endeavours". and if this point is not accepted, then I will be worried later tonight for both myself and the noble Baroness. At this stage I will leave the matter, and so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.56 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 27A:
Page 41, line 5, at end insert—
("or
454
The tenant has been fairly dismissed for misconduct in his work on the farm.").
The noble Earl said: A farmer has a responsibility to farm according to the rules of good husbandry and a tenant farmer has a contractual duty to do so. It follows that if a farm employee is not prepared, or is unable, to carry out the duties reasonably required of him, the farmer must dismiss him or endanger the efficiency of the farming enterprise. This lack of co-operation is currently termed "misconduct", and this legislation must make it possible under the circumstances for the courts to give possession of the tied cottage. The employee's interest is already protected by the Employment Protection Act, and so only cases of fair dismissal—and I stress "fair"—will be considered. To give security of tenure to a former employee who has been justly dismissed puts an unreasonable responsibility for public housing on the farmer; not only that, but the presence of the dismissed employee on the farm may well prejudice the continued efficient farming of the holding and cause friction with the remaining farm labour.
I acknowledge that the Amendment runs contrary to the aim of the legislation, but it is a very specialised case that we are considering. I therefore do not believe the Amendment to be a wrecking one because as the Bill stands the balance is wrong, and furthermore any application will be subject to the court's ratification. I beg to move.
Lord SANDYS: I should like to support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Caithness. We are looking at Case III of Schedule 3 now, and two points are cited in the Bill under Case III: the situation where
"Rent lawfully due from the tenant has not been paid,
OR
Any other lawful obligation of tie tenant, whether or not it is an obligation created by this Act, has been broken or not performed."
To those two is added, by the Amendment, the situation described by my noble friend.
I think there is a case here for considering a particular situation, and I was glad that my noble friend Lord Ferrers quoted an example. Here perhaps I might be permitted to quote another. It

455
involves a situation in which an employee has been fairly dismissed as a result of a felony, a theft. Is it reasonable that the tenant—that is, the farmworker who has been dismissed—should be permitted to remain in the tied cottage, he having been convicted of a felony and having applied for possession of the dwelling? This gives rise to a situation in which it would be difficult, indeed impossible, for the farmer to carry on his relationships as before. It would give rise to a difficult social situation within the rest of the workforce on the farm, if there is a larger workforce than one.
I believe there is a case for the Government re-examining this situation. As my noble friend described it, misconduct covers quite a large number of situations. It covers bad management, misbehaviour, wrong or unlawful behaviour or malfeasance. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Janner, would like to give us his opinion of malfeasance; but, in any case, what amounts to misconduct is, I think, recognised in law. I believe this Amendment is closely drafted and different from the one which was considered before Standing Committee K, and I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to consider it satisfactorily.
Baroness BIRK: Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is quite right when he says there is a case for this. I am not blind about these things; I can see exactly what he means and what he is getting at. At the same time the noble Earl who moved this Amendment put his finger on the main point, which is the point on which I am afraid I have to resist this Amendment. He agreed that it impinged on the principle of the Bill, and this is what it is about. The tenant who has been fairly dismissed for misconduct at his work has been dismissed for his work on the farm. One of the basic aims of the Bill—and this was set out in the Consultative Document—is to disengage farmworkers' conditions of employment from the conditions in which they are housed, and this Amendment, I am afraid, breaches that principle, which, as I think the noble Earl realised, underlies the whole of the Bill. If the farmworker is a bad tenant, then by all means he has to pay the penalty of dispossession if the court finds that he is in breach of his
456
tenancy agreement; but if he has failed in his duties as an employee, then under the terms of the Bill it would be quite wrong that he should be liable to lose his home as well as his job. Therefore, although I understand exactly what the noble Lords are getting at in their Amendment, I am afraid the Government have to resist it. I therefore hope that the noble Earl will withdraw it.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Could the noble Baroness not give us a hope that she will have a look at the words? I have got her point; and one does not expect the Government to go against the main principle of a Bill when they have carried it so far. But could she not find words which would apply if the misconduct was not to do with the work—that is, if there was a theft, or something, which was nothing to do with the work—but was such that it should give another reason for obtaining possession? That is, not to do with their work—I understand the principle there—but because they have been proved to have done something which, from a social point of view, makes it impossible for them to carry on. That would not impinge upon the principle of the Bill, but it would be facing up to the very point which the noble Baroness said she recognised and with which, obviously, from recognising it, she would like to deal. All I am asking at this stage is whether, with that in mind, with the possibility of separating dismissal because of their work from dismissal for some other social reason, she would just say that she will look at it in order to find words which will not cut across the principle but will meet the point which she says she recognises.
Lord JANNER: I, too, appreciate the difficulty which arises in a case of this nature, but I am sure that the noble Lord who has just spoken will understand that if it is a serious offence the penalty imposed in court upon the person who committed that offence would be a penalty which would not include the deprivation of his home. I should like the noble Lord to think about that. In other words, the full penalty is allotted by a court to meet the case which has come before it. Of course, if it were a very serious case there would be no need to preserve the home, because the person concerned would, in effect, be in another

457
home from which he could not very easily get out. I hope I am not speaking too frivolously, but there is a possibility of that kind. For myself, I think the Government are right. If an offence has been committed, the person concerned is liable to punishment. He gets the full punishment that the court allots, and I think that should not be added to by other penalties.
Lord MIDDLETON: When the noble Baroness talked to us about the principles of the Bill, she quoted the Consultative Document. The Consultative Document also says that the legislation:
"should remove the social objections to the tied cottage, and its form and effect should be to ensure that there is no adverse effect upon the efficiency of the agricultural industry".
Time and again we come up against this matter of the balance between the interests of the worker and the interests of the farmer. All these Amendments are trying to get this balance right, and I quite see that the noble Earl's Amendment fits. That balance could be impaired if this man stays in residence. I think it is a difficult one, and I support it.
Lord COLLISON: I intervene again simply because this is a most important principle that we are discussing. The Bill quite rightly makes a distinction. On the one hand, there is misbehaviour which affects the property in which a man is living—it is clear that this is a reason why the court should decide against him—and on the other hand, there is clearly ruled out considerations such as felony because, as my noble friend has just said, the law will deal with that and will punish a man in its own way, and he should not be punished twice.
Lord JANNER: A man or woman.
Lord COLLISON: The Bill makes a distinction between that and ill-discipline, bad behaviour or lack of good workmanship on the farm. I think it is most important that we should all be clear that these aspects must be kept entirely distinct. As an old trade union man, I can see difficulties arising with regard to misconduct which an employer might consider justifies dismissal but which the worker and indeed the union do not. Once again, I do not want to give the impression that I take a bad view of employers in agriculture.
458
I know them too well, and across the board they behave very well indeed. I am not grumbling about that; but there are employers who, maybe through prejudice, take a view of a worker which is unbalanced and which has to be corrected.
I am thinking of the number of cases that I know of personally where an employer has sought to dismiss a worker simply because he has joined a trade union. It does not happen so frequently these days, but it has happened in the past and occasionally it still happens today. The excuse is made that the man has fallen down on his job, whereas the real motive is that the employer does not like the trade union. I know the noble Earl who moved the Amendment told us that reference could be made under the Employment Protection Act, but this is a ponderous piece of machinery which has to be gone through; and, if they are not going to do it, who is going to do it? Is it the court which is going to decide the question whether alternative accommodation should be provided? Is there to be taken into account, in this question of misconduct, whether the farmer's case is right or whether the man's case is right? It is far too ponderous. As I have said, the important thing is that we all make this clear distinction. Behaviour regarding the tenancy is one thing and behaviour with regard to the work on the farm, and such things as theft and felony, is quite another. They must be kept distinct.
There is another point which has not been made but which I will make now. In the majority of these cases—99 out of 100, I would say—the man in the tied cottage is not there alone. He has a wife and children who would suffer the consequences of eviction. Although one can understand, as my noble friends understood, the idea behind this Amendment, I would say that it is quite wrong that an innocent woman and her children should be made to suffer because of the husband's deficiencies, if they are deficiencies. I think that on these grounds the Amendment should be resisted or withdrawn.
Earl FERRERS: With respect, one must be very careful not to use the wrong word, and I am sure that the noble Lord did so inadvertently. He said that the family would be subject to eviction. It would not. It is merely a court order for possession. That is a different thing. Eviction is a long way after, if ever.
Lord COLLISON: That is true; but it could lead to eviction as it has done in the past.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: What would be the position with a farmworker who had set fire to the hay in the barn but who at the same time looked after the house he was in extremely well? Would the farmer still have to have that man in his house?—because he might go and set fire to the next lot of hay. Should there not be degrees of misconduct? That is what I do not understand. It seems that some great injustice might be done to the farmer.
Lord COLLISON: I am sorry to have to rise to my feet again, but I think the point was addressed to me. Despite the enormity of such an offence the principle must remain. If you establish a principle you cannot have degrees of that principle. Bad though it may be, it is proper to keep in everyone's mind this clear distinction between the behaviour on the farm at work, felonies, and behaviour relating to the house.
Lord ROBBINS: I am extremely bewildered by the attitude of the noble Lord and the attitude of the Front Bench in this respect. Instead of discussing hypothetical cases may we discuss a case which was actually quoted on Second Reading, when the noble Lord, Lord Moyne (who is not in his place at the moment), explained that he had dismissed a worker for cruelty to the animals over which he had charge. It seems to me that there is something wrong with the interpretation as a principle of the Bill if in such a case the farmer is to be compelled to respect the security of tenure.
Lord WALSTON: May I, as a farmer, support my noble friend Lord Collison as a representative of the farmworkers? I was not able to be here at the Second Reading debate but this seems to me essentially a matter of principle which must have been, and I know was, dealt with at that time. As my noble friend Lady Birk rightly pointed out, the object of this Bill—which in general I support, although there are certain minor aspects that I should prefer to see modified—is to allow the farmer to retain the privilege of any employer to get rid of the worker who does not do his work properly; but
460
it restricts the power to that and does not allow him to extend his power (other than in very exceptional cases) to take away from the worker the place in which he lives. Surely the cases quoted, whether cruelty to animals, setting fire to haystacks or gross inefficiency at work are matters where the employer has the right to sack the man and where the courts, if the offence is criminal, have the duty to punish the criminal; but there the matter stops. There should be no power to superimpose on those two sanctions that which does not exist in any other industry; the sanction of depriving the man and his family of their home.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The point surely is, first, that if a policeman commits a crime he is then kicked out of his police house and his wife and children suffer; and, second, it has been established beyond peradventure that agricultural tied cottages are a very minor percentage of the actual amount of tied accommodation which exists. With the greatest respect, the noble Lord for whom I have great admiration, has not been strictly and completely accurate.
Lord WALSTON: The noble Earl is quite right. I was not absolutely accurate and I apologise. There are certain very restricted occupations where if a man is sacked for one reason or another or convicted of a criminal offence he loses his house. That is true of the police force, of the master of a college, or a parson—and there are various others. I do not want to enlarge this into a Second Reading debate, particularly as I was not here, but I am sure that all those matters were dealt with then. Essentially, although there are these exceptions, an employee of an electronics firm, of a motor car manufacturing firm, of the vast majority of our industry and commerce in this country does not suffer this disability. Whether one should have embraced in this the policeman, the parson and the head of a college is quite another matter. But I think it right that the agricultural worker should, in so far as is consistent with the efficient running of a farm, be protected from this type of double penalty for failing to do his job properly. I hope that this Amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness YOUNG: May I put one more point about this? As I understand it,

461
my noble friend is suggesting another case that should be added to those cases in Part I of the Schedule, in which the court has a discretion. It is not the type of case in which the court must order possession. We have heard, over the case which my noble friend Lord Stanley tried to move from Part I to Part that, in fact, the court would act justly, that it would take account of all these factors, that it was composed of responsible people and would look at the case fully. It seems to me that one cannot argue in one set of circumstances that the court would be completely unreasonable and in another that it would be completely reasonable; it will have consistency. I cannot see, therefore, why this could not be included in that series of cases. It would follow not altogether inconveniently from the No. 4 case in which the court has to satisfy itself about the nuisance to adjoining neighbours, which it does in a number of cases. I should have thought that this was not an unreasonable thing to be included in the Bill, particularly in the sort of case that the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, instanced.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: There is one point which we seem to be losing sight of. The noble Lord opposite said that it was terribly bad luck on a farm worker who, through misconduct on the farm, lost his job and his house as well; he said it would be bad luck on the wife and children. I agree, it would be bad luck. But have we given thought to the wife and children of the new employee, who probably has been engaged by the farmer to take the job but who cannot be employed because there is no accommodation for him to go to? Is that not just as bad luck on the next wife and family?
4.20 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should like to place one point on the record. I was almost convinced by the way the noble Baroness dealt with this matter of principle; but I was jerked back to reality very quickly by the noble Lord, Lord Collison. If the only reason he can produce—and we know the voice he represents is one which is powerful and influences the Government—is that somebody may be dismissed because he joins a trade union, something which nowadays could not happen with the tribunal which deals with unfair dismissal, then I am
462
very worried. I do not think that one can dismiss the case put forward by my noble friend if it is that a hayrick has been burnt down.
I have an interest in some hotels. Recently we had a case where a porter set fire to part of a hotel. The matter did not go to court. He was considered not to be of sufficient responsibility to take to court. But we had to dismiss the man; it was right that we should in view of the danger. I have knowledge of a case where the occupant of a tied cottage of a farm molested the daughter of a farmer; that carried the risk of rape. There was no question of that matter going to court; it was not desirable in the interests of the family name that it should go to court. That man could not continue in that employment, nor did the people with whom he had to work want him.
There are many instances of I his sort—the burning of the hayrick or the risk of rape—where the man is dismissed, and it is unreasonable to think that he should be allowed to continue as though nothing had happened. If the noble Baroness could consider this and find words to meet that type of case, which does not include the principle of being dismissed because of the way the man is doing the job, I am sure that the Bill will become a better one.
Lord MONCK BRETTON: The practicalities of this matter must be considered. In a small rural community, after a "bust-up" of the kind we are talking about, it is highly probable that the man himself might well want to move and start afresh, let alone the reaction of other people in the village and the farmer. I greatly fear anything being in the Bill which would impede that process. It might be greatly regretted, particularly if the man wanted to move, and the local authority was not co-operating in regard to a need which would more thin likely be a practical and real need and where a move would be best for everyone.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I should like to ask something which is for my own elucidation. The noble Lord, Lord Collison, said there could be conditions which an employer would regard as misconduct and an employee or trade unionist would not. I hope I will not be accused of being hypothetical or irrelevant, but

463
could the noble Lord illustrate this point more forcefully so that we can understand what he means by it?
Lord COLLISON: I am always concerned not to create a wrong impression. The last impression in the world that I want to create is that I or my old union think that all employers are bullies and rogues. There have been a number of cases. One could go through the records and see where work people have been dismissed on the pretext that they have not done their jobs properly, when we have felt, known or guessed—I do not know the appropriate word; it is difficult to prove—that the real motivation was that the employer did not like the idea of the union coming in. This is what I mean when I say that the union or man might consider he had done his work properly, and therefore he had been wrongly dismissed.
With regard to the noble Lord who queried my comments just now, I was making the point that the recourse for the man in those circumstances was to the Employment Act. This was a ponderous piece of machinery. That was my argument. Therefore it was a delaying factor which ought not to be introduced. I also made the point that I thought it was not the function of the court to have to go into the question of alternative accommodation. I shall be guilty, if I am not careful, of wasting time, so I simply return to my adherence to the principle that what we are dealing with is the question of the house; and behaviour which damages the house, and so on, is legitimate to take into account, but only that. Behaviour on the farm—the way the man does his work or even felony or theft—is another matter which should be taken into account. I agree that the employer is entitled to dismiss the man who sets fire to a hayrick. The employer would behave as I would in the circumstances. If I found a man maltreating animals, I would dismiss him. I would treat him with contempt. I have at times been provoked to the point of almost offering physical force when I have seen these things happen. Of course one dislikes them. They are wrong and they are inhuman. If one has to accept the principle then there can be no question of degree. The two issues are separate.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble Lord is saying that the only place where there is likely to be a disagreement over misconduct is whether the man joins a union or not. That is what I understood him to say: that was the only example he gave.
Lord COLLISON: That is only one example. I am sorry, but I am forced to get up again. There could be a number of examples where the employer argues that the man has not done his job properly and the work man says: "I have", and he would be supported in that view by other people—perhaps independent people, perhaps trade unions.
Lord ROBBINS: The noble Lord argues with such sweet reasonableness that I am tempted to push the argument further. He has agreed that if he were a farmer who caught his stockman ill-treating the stock, he would dismiss him. Would he not feel in those circumstances that he, the farmer, was the victim of injustice in being compelled to continue to give accommodation to such a man? I ask in a wider sense: have we reached the limits of human ingenuity, that in order to maintain the general principle it is impossible to insert qualifications which eliminate the possibility of what I fancy the noble Lord and I would both agree to be an injustice?
Lord COLLISON: Surely this is a non sequitur. If an employer dismisses the man for setting fire to a haystack or maltreating an animal, he has dismissed him from the job. The question of cottage accommodation and alternative accommodation lies with the courts and the local authority. One would hope that alternative accommodation would be found very quickly. If it is not, there could be a problem; I have never balked that issue. One has to keep the two concepts separate, otherwise one gets into a hopeless mess mentally and practically.
Earl FERRERS: The last remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, are the fundamental remarks. What he has said is that we must keep the aspect of the employment of people separate from the housing issue. These are totally different matters and the two should not be confused.

465
With respect to the noble Lord, and I accept his view, that is exactly where we disagree. This is something that we call argue about for ever and will never come to an agreement over; but it has been our view that over agriculture, in the same way as over any other tied cottage or industry, you cannot divorce the two, because if you divorce the two, the concept of the tied cottage would never have existed in the first place. The reason why the tied cottage has existed—and it does not matter whether it is in the Church, or the breweries or anything at all—is because of the necessity. Obviously that is something on which we cannot agree. But the noble Lord has always pointed out that this was his strong feeling, with which I wholeheartedly agree, and although at the outset this was not an Amendment we felt we would wish to press, I am bound to say that I have been hugely impressed by the arguments which have been put forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Robbins, referred to the dilemma a person has where a farm worker has been dismissed for cruelty to stock and yet under this Bill is still obliged to stay on. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls referred to a different industry, admittedly, where a person set fire to a house; but one could transpose that condition to agriculture where a person sets fire to some part of the property and yet still has the right to retain the occupation of a house which should be required for the successful operation of that business. But where the point of the noble Lord, Lord Collison, may fall down—and I say this with the greatest of respect—is that in all these cases where a landlord should have the right of repossession it is only where there is fair dismissal. It is not where there is unfair dismissal. Any employee has the right to request that his case for dismissal be considered under arbitration. That is what the Employment Protection Act is about. The situation is that a farmer has dismissed a farm worker for what he considers to be right and fair causes and the farm worker has taken his case along to the tribunal and said, "Look, I have been unfairly dismissed", and the tribunal looks at everything and says, "No, you haven't been unfairly dismissed; in fact the dismissal is quite right and fair because you have done this, that and the other thing wrong. "It is only then that, in the wider interests of agriculture, it
466
would be reasonable for the farmer to repossess himself of that house in order to make way for somebody who will not have been guilty of the same offence for which this person has been dismissed. I feel that the argument for this Amendment has been very much greater than I had expected it to be and if my noble friend Lord Caithness sitting behind me wishes to press this Amendment, then I would certainly advise my noble friends to support him.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I have been sitting listening to this debate, as what I can only describe as a "Townie" although I have lived on a farm, and to the rather hair-raising picture of some of the people employed on farms. When they are not burning down barns, they seem to be raping the landlord's daughter or ill-treating the stock presumably. But surely the noble Earl who has just spoken knows that the type of tied house I know is a different one, that related to certain people like the police force or the licensed shop.
There is another point which I think we are in danger of losing sight of, and that is the case of a man—and this case I have actually met—who has been handicapped suddenly by an accident and therefore is asked to leave his employment because he obviously cannot carry it on. But the reason for being in that tied cottage was because he could obtain the job only if he accepted the tied cottage. We must include that in our deliberations. What is the situation of the widow?—and I know of a case where possession was obtained in eight weeks and she had to Dave this tied cottage. When we are talking about the bad employee, we all recognise that there are bad employees and bad employers; but in a Bill of this kind we must recognise that there is another consideration which seems to be being lost sight of.
The Earl of ONSLOW: There seem to be two points on this matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. First of all, the Amendment says that the tenant has been fairly dismissed for misconduct in his work on the farm. So that must exclude the tragedy of him becoming paralysed or dying, and his widow. Secondly, this Bill has been introduced only because there has been strong feeling, and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Collison, would agree with this about the behaviour of a very small minority of

467
bad farm employers. I suspect that this Amendment is aimed at dealing with the very small minority of bad employees. Surely, we must be able to have it both ways or no way at all. One can legislate for a small minority of bad employers and therefore it is fair to legislate for a small minority of bad employees, but you cannot have legislation just for the small minority of bad employers and exclude their being given protection against the small minority of bad employees.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I should like an explanation from the noble Baroness of the terms of this Amendment. I thought that we were talking about misconduct on the farm and dismissal for that. I was horrified to hear the noble Lord, Lord Walston, and the noble Lord, Lord Collison, apparently include arson as a normal type of misconduct on the farm. They quite lightheartedly talked about burning down hayricks, but I should have thought that that did not come within the terms of this Amendment at all and was covered by Case IV when it says:
"… the tenant, or any person residing or lodging with him or subtenant of his, has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers …"
I hope that the noble Baroness does not regard arson as a normal, polite form of misconduct?
Baroness BIRK: The noble Lord is absolutely correct. A number of the examples that have been thrown around in this rather protracted debate are covered in cases IV and V. The setting fire to the house comes under Case V rather than Case IV but he is perfectly right that that is covered in this way. When the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said that if the Bill was to deal with a minority of bad farmers then it should deal with a minority of bad employees, he has once again tilted the whole purpose of it which was put very clearly by my noble friend Lord Walston who again emphasised, as I tried to do at the beginning, that the sanction depriving a man of his home as well as of his employment is quite wrong. When the noble Baroness, Lady Young, drew an analogy between the previous Amendment and this one, it was not a correct analogy because there we were accepting the question of the basis of security of
468
tenure and here we are not. Despite all that has been said—and I agree with my noble friend Lady Phillips about the various horror stories we have had and also the amount of truth there may be in some of the cases—I come back to the fact that if you are going to divorce the two as we are in this Bill (it is quite right that we keep it to this Bill and not stray into the areas of other tied cottages, because we are dealing with rent agriculture in this Bill) then you have to keep that division between employment and tenancy.
I am afraid that this Amendment which was moved by the noble Earl—and I come back to what he said he realised—impinges upon the principle of this Bill. In fact, in speaking and raising the different points that they have raised, noble Lords have taken it for granted that everybody in even these—as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, put it—minority of cases, will stay put. It appears that some of them will be in prison, anyhow, as a result of some of the things which have been mentioned. Either they will move away or they will want to get out; not everybody will stay put. We are concerned with breaches of tenancy as a ground for the loss of a dwelling-house, not with anything which arises in employment. Therefore I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw the Amendment.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Before the noble Baroness sits down, can I have an answer to my point? Does the noble Baroness regard arson as a normal misconduct at work? It is very important that we should have an answer so that we may decide whether or not to support the Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: If it is a question of the burning of a dwelling-house, this is covered by Case V. A number of the other examples which have been given are covered by Case IV, as the noble Lord pointed out, which then destroys the basis of the tenancy. If it is a question of dismissal from employment, it does not come within the principle which I have been expounding.
Lord ROBBINS: Is the noble Baroness arguing that setting fire to the house in which one lives as a tenant constitutes a ground for eviction, whereas setting fire to

469
the properties with which one's work is concerned is not so covered? I really cannot believe that the noble Baroness, who is very reasonable in all kinds of respects, can possibly argue that principles are so wooden as all that. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, mentioned some extremely trifling exceptions, such as heads of colleges with whom I have not much sympathy. However, there are all kinds of other exceptions.
I would argue with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that there are all kinds of educational jobs where a teacher is obliged night and day to look after the children under his control. If such a teacher mishandled or ill-treated the children and were dismissed for that reason, would either of the noble Baronesses think that it was consonant with the principles of justice that the educational authority concerned, private or public, should be compelled to continue security of tenure? It seems to me that that is quite unreasonable.
Baroness BIRK: If I may deal with the point which the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has raised, although I am sure that he did not mean to do so, he gave the impression that on the one hand action could be taken while on the other hand no action of any kind could be taken. If somebody commits the kind of acts which the noble Lord has suggested, then that person comes within the criminal law; he will not be left alone. We are discussing whether a person should lose his home if he has not broken the terms of his tenancy and has not warranted dispossession of his home.
As I pointed out, this is covered in the Bill itself, as it is covered in all the Rent Acts, by a number of exceptions where dispossession can take place. However, to tie up the question of dismissal from employment with the question of the loss of the home is adding a breach. With great respect, I cannot be drawn into a discussion of other forms of tied employment because at the moment we are discussing the Rent (Agriculture) Bill and tied cottages. What might be discussed in different areas I do not think would be right for me even to guess at the moment.
Lord ROBBINS: With respect to that point, may I draw the attention of the
470
noble Baroness to the fact that this argument arose apropos thy; example given by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, of the dismissal of a stockman whom he discovered was treating his stock cruelly. Is that necessarily something which comes under the criminal law? I should have thought that it was very marginal. I should also have thought that the noble Lord's action was entirely justifiable and that it would be an embarrassment to the conduct of his affairs if he were compelled to keep hanging about the place the person whom he discovered was committing this cruelty.
Baroness BIRK: In the normal course of events, if this Bill were not in existence, and the stockman were dismissed and the farmer or landlord wanted to get possession of the cottage, at the end of the day the man would probably be evicted and become a burden on the local authority. Under the Bill, if the farmer needs that accommodation for an incoming stockman I should think that he would have a very strong case which would be strongly supported by the agricultural dwelling-house advisory committee. It would certainly give him priority with the local authority. At the end of the day, therefore, there would be very little difference.
Earl FERRERS: Then why not accept the Amendment?
Lord SWAYTHLING: We have had a long debate, but there is one question that I want to ask. If the Amendment is passed, surely it is a question of misconduct on the farm, not the question of criminality. My noble friend spoke about arson. It may be that the employee was so careless that he set fire to the haystack or destroyed a valuable tractor or other piece of farm machinery. Those are cases which would be described as misconduct, and the Amendment should therefore be supported. I do not agree with the argument about cruelty to animals because we have excluded the dairymen and livestock keepers from the Bill. Therefore the argument concerning cruelty to animals would not apply at the moment to the question of tied cottages.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: We have had a long debate. I am more convinced than ever that we ought to press the Amendment. Therefore I ask the Committee to decide.
4.48 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 27A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 154; Not-Contents, 73.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Onslow, E.

Alport, L.

Gage, V.

Platt, L.

Amherst, E.

George-Brown, L.

Radnor, E.

Amory, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Amulree, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Arran, E.

Glenkinglas, L.

Redesdale, L.

Auckland, L.

Goschen, V.

Reigate, L.

Avebury, L.

Gray, L.

Robbins, L.

Balerno, L.

Grey, E.

Roberthall, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gridley, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Banks, L.

Hankey, L.

Rochdale, V.

Barnby, L.

Hanworth, V.

Romney, E.

Barrington, V.

Harcourt, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sackville, L.

Berkeley, B.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Blake, L.

Hives, L.

St. Davids, V.

Bledisloe, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

St. Just, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Ilchester, E.

Salisbury, M.

Bradford, E.

Inchyra, L.

Sandford, L.

Burnham, L.

Jessel, L.

Sandys, L.

Byers, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Savile, L.

Caccia, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Seear, B.

Caithness, E.

Long, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lovat, L.

Sharples, B.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Simon, V.

Carrington, L.

Luke, L.

Spens, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lyell, L.

Stamp, L.

Clancarty, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Clark, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strang, L.

Clitheroe, L.

McNair, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Clwyd, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cobham, V.

Margadale, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Coleraine, L.

Marley, L.

Suffield, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Swansea, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Swaythling, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Terrington, L.

Cromartie, E.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Middleton, L.

Teynham, L.

Daventry, V.

Molson, L.

Tranmire, L.

Davidson, V.

Monck, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Monk Bretton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monson, L.

Vickers, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Mottistone, L.

Wade, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elles, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Wardington, L.

Elton, L.

Netherthorpe, L.

Westbury, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Newall, L.

Wigoder, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Norfolk, D.

Wolverton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Young, B.

Forbes, L.

O'Hagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Collison, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Arwyn, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Henderson, L.

Aylestone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Birk, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Janner, L.

Blyton, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Kaldor, L.

Bolton, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brimelow, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Brockway, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Leatherland, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Burntwood, L.

Greenway, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Champion, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Chorley, L.

Hale, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Lyons of Brighton, L.

Raglan, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

McCluskey, L.

Rhodes, L.

Wall, L.

Maelor, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Mais, L.

Shepherd, L.

Walston, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Northfield, L.

Slater, L.

White, B.

Oram, L.

Snow, L.

Wigg, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Pannell, L.

Stone, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Parry, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Wise, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Peddie, L.

Summerskill, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Phillips, B.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 41, line 11, at end insert—
("2. The tenant, or any person residing or lodging with him or subtenant of his, by any act or omission, has caused substantial damage to, or has placed in jeopardy, agricultural operations on land adjoining the dwelling-house.").
The noble Lord said: We move now into Case IV, and as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has already referred to Cases IV and V with regard to arson, this will be familiar ground; but I should like to refer particularly to the breadth of Case IV, and with your Lordships' permission I will repeat the text. It says:
"The tenant, or any person residing or lodging with him or sub-tenant of his, has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or annoyance to adjoining occupiers, or has been convicted of using the dwelling-house, or allowing the dwelling-house to be used, for immoral or illegal purposes."
The Amendment which is attached to Case IV is as set out on the Marshalled List and the point about the Amendment is that very often the situation will arise in which the act as described in the Amendment, that is substantial damage, takes place not within the dwelling-house itself but on adjoining ground. Circumstances have already been described in which a rick has been burnt or something of that nature, and perhaps I may quote from a situation which has come to my knowledge, which is of a somewhat similar description.
Let us suppose the circumstances of a tractor driver who is employed on a farm, who has a disagreement with the farmer and is correctly dismissed from his employment. The ex-employee wishes to set up a small business and he decides that a business which would bring small
474
profits and quick returns would be a scrap metal business. So lie purchases a vehicle and stacks his goods alongside the dwelling-house. One of his activities—and a highly anti-social one—will be the burning of motor tyres and the removal of such burnable pat is of the scrap as he deems necessary. Here is a case where considerable nuisance occurs, not in the dwelling-house but on land or premises adjoining the dwelling-house; and it may well give rise to substantial damage.
Your Lordships may think that circumstances like this can be adequately catered for by prosecution under the Public Health Act 1936, or under the misuse of premises legislation, or conceivably under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. That may be so. It may be possible to prosecute under the Public Health Act 1936, hut in cases known to me the local authority did not see fit to do so.
It seems right and proper that Case IV should be extended to agricultural operations on land adjoining the dwelling-house. This could be horticulture. It would be agricultural business conducted in premises alongside; that is, a large turkey farm or something of that nature, which is prejudiced by an activity of the type that I have described. As we have spent a great deal of time on the last Amendment, I do not wish to labour the point. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: As the nobl! Lord, Lord Sandys, said, we spent a great deal of time on the previous Amendment. Basically the principle is the same, that the grounds for possession in the Rent Act should relate to the conduct of a tenant as a tenant and not to his general social or unsocial behaviour, however obnoxious that may be. While one can accept that an ex-farm worker

475
still living on the farm may have more opportunities for damaging his landlord's property than an ordinary Rent Act tenant, this again is a difference of degree, and the principle, we believe, should still remain.
In addition to the examples cited by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, there is already in Case IV the conduct he mentioned. There are remedies which go beyond the ones which he mentioned under the Health Act, because there are remedies under both civil and criminal law. I do not want to prolong this discussion, and I shall not read every word I have in front of me. But there are a great many problems about this matter. It could be that this is the conduct of someone living near who in fact is not an ex-farm worker and has nothing to do with the farmer. It could be someone who, for instance, has a weekend cottage bounding on the farm who behaves like this; so it is very difficult to bring this in. It would be quite wrong to bring these points once again into the Bill. To sum up briefly, I rest the case on this and would ask the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment purely on the basis of the main principle: that it is a question of the security under the Rent Acts. At this stage I hope we are not going to spend too long on this matter. I will not go into the various technical faults which there are in the Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: The noble Baroness mentioned that there are technical faults in the Amendment. Naturally, I am anxious to know whether these are drafting faults. Nevertheless, there are two matters which I must draw to the attention of your Lordships. The noble Baroness acknowledged that the way in which Case IV is drawn relates to the 1968 Act, in so far as it allows for circumstances broadly of an urban nature. This is one of our basic quarrels with the drafting of the Bill, because Case IV is a straight apport from Schedule 3 of that Act. I think that the circumstances which I have described are ones which are not necessarily catered for by criminal damage proceedings but more related to the law of nuisance, which, as the noble Baroness will be well aware, is a particular branch of the law of considerable difficulty. So far as this Amendment is concerned, I am prepared to withdraw it on the basis
476
that we may wish to bring forward a different one on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.5 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 42, leave out lines 10 and 11.
The noble Lord said: We move on from Case IV to Case IX. Towards the end of Part I of Case IX two lines are referred to. They say:
"and the landlord did not become landlord by purchasing the dwelling-house, or any interest in it, after 12th April 1976".
The Amendment which I move, to delete those two lines, is one which is related inevitably to what we believe to be an unreasonable qualification written into the Bill. Circumstances often occur on a farm when there is a revision of its boundaries. Perhaps another piece of land is purchased, and with it a tied cottage. If a date is fixed, such as the 12th April 1976, immediately that particular property and its tied cottage which become added to the farm become subject to this particular disqualification.
Unfortunately, the other point to which draftsmen so rarely pay attention is that of building a date into an Act of Parliament. Inevitably it makes that Act of Parliament the more easily disapplied to particular cases. It is a situation which we should guard against. I have quoted one example, and I could quote more, where an interest was taken by the landlord. It could well be that it would become part of the disqualification in Case IX. I do not think at this stage I wish to dwell too long on the Amendment, as I feel sure it will be clear to your Lordships.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Historically, farming has been a family business. Because sons and daughters have followed their parents into the family business they have all had incentive to improve the farm, to reinvest in fixed equipment, and this makes Britain's agriculture the most efficient in the world. In any family business it may be necessary to provide extra accommodation as the next generation comes along, accommodation into which they can move or into which the father can retire. In fact, farmers never

477
retire fully, but continue in their so-called retirement to afford valuable help on the farm, giving continuity to the business.
Whilst it might be reasonable for the Rent Acts to contain such a provision, farming is totally different from other activities because of the continuity involved in the farming enterprise. It is quite wrong that the sensible provisions contained in Case IX should not apply to accommodation acquired after 12th April 1976. It is quite clear that after the passing of this Bill the farmer will only ever consider acquiring a new cottage where he can foresee the need for that accommodation in the future. To preclude this person from using it for the purpose for which it was acquired must be absurd and of no benefit to the industry. The only farmers to be affected by the legislation as it stands will be owner occupiers who purchased after 12th April. In present circumstances they will be limited in number and their applications under Case IX will not be very numerous. It is most unreasonable for the Government to legislate against those they have supported by other recent legislation, particularly when it is subject to a court's decision on the question of hardship.
The Earl of ONSLOW: As I understand it, with the 12th April date written into it you could get the following situation. A farmer has retired; his son lives in the main house and the farmer goes and lives in a small house, but the farmer still owns the property. The farmer dies on 13th April 1976 and his widow still goes on living there. Is it not possible that when the son in his turn retires he could not get possession of that cottage? Does it mean that the whole of this Case IX becomes obsolete with the passing of generations? If it becomes obsolete, because of death and passing on over the years, because of this date, then I would support this Amendment wholeheartedly.
Baroness BIRK: In the first place perhaps I could deal with the general principle of this. This is made quite clear in Case IX, where it makes it a ground for possession that the landlord reasonably requires the house to live in himself or to house certain very close relatives. There must also be no greater hardship in granting the order than in
478
refusing to do so. All it does, as it stands at the moment, is to exclude cases where the landlord bought the house with an occupier already in it after 12th April 1976. Again, this exclusion is modelled on the parallel case in the Rent Act. The principle underlying it is quite simple. If a landlord bought an occupied house before the Bill was published intending to use it for himself or one of his relatives, Case IX would still be open to him. If, however, he bought an occupied house after the Bill was published, when he would be in a position to know of the protection to be afforded I to agricultural workers and their successors, then he should not be allowed to use Case IX against the occupier in question. I would have thought this principle is fair and deserves to be upheld, and there is no reason to depart from it in the context of the Bill.
The Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has moved, and to which the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, spoke, would have the result that the landlord would be able to buy an occupied house, with or without the farm, after the Bill had been published, knowing that the occupier might be protected once the Bill was enacted, and could then claim possession in order to house himself or a member of his own or his wife's close family. This would be a breach of the principle which I have just outlined.
If I understood the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, correctly, the case he cited does not really come into it, because the Bill deals with buying a house and, as I understood it, the noble Earl was talking about a widow continuing to in the house. The widow could continue to live in the house. I was listening very carefully to what the noble Earl said. When he spoke about keeping t in the family, that house would already be in his possession. What we are talking about is buying it after 12th April 1976. If it is there, there is no exclusion.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: I quite see the principle of excluding a separate cottage bought after the date of the Act purely to use it for the purpose of housing your mother-in-law or whoever it may be, but what we are really talking about is buying the whole farm. If you buy a farm with five cottages on it, and through passage of time the farmer wants to retire,

479
it is a little hard then that there is a protected occupant in one of the cottages and he has got to go and buy something else. I think there is a great difference between buying the whole farm and buying one protected cottage or house in order to be able to turn out the people under this case. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would consider looking at this difference between the case of the whole farm being bought and somebody buying one cottage as a device.
Baroness BIRK: If somebody buys the whole farm, then he is buying it in the knowledge that there are in certain of the cottages occupants who are protected. This is exactly the same as somebody buying a house in which some of the fiats may be occupied and some not. He buys it in that knowledge; he knows what he is buying. I do not really see that there is any difference with regard to the principle.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Surely it is grossly unjust then to people residing in protected cottages on farms which have been inherited as against farms which have been bought. Surely there is no difference between the two. For all time you are making two different classes of protected occupants.
Baroness YOUNG: This has been taken precisely from the Rent Act 1968. Am I right in thinking that if someone buys a cottage in which there is no tenant after 12th April then this case does not apply? What the noble Baroness is saying, and what I understand the Bill is saying, is that someone cannot purchase a cottage, or presumably a farm with cottages, after 12th April and then expect to get a Case IX order. But if he purchases a farm with cottages that are empty, which I think is the kind of case to which Lord Mackie was referring, this particular case does not apply.
Baroness BIRK: As I understand it, that is exactly so, but I do not see how that ties up with what the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, said. If it was empty it was empty. He is talking of a case where there are people in the cottage. There is a difference if you have got people in it already, but there is no difference between that situation and an urban situation where you buy something knowing somebody is
480
there. In any case you probably pay less for it because of the fact that you have sitting tenants there.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: Perhaps I may explain my point. Some people will inherit farms with people in the cottages. They can apply Case IX for the benefit of an aunt or grandfather, or whoever it may be. Other people will buy farms but they will be totally unable to apply that Case. This does not appear to me to be particularly fair.
Baroness BIRK: They can only have brought it after the date when the Bill applies, after 12th April 1976 when the Bill was published, knowing that there was going to be a change in the tied cottage situation. They are then buying with their eyes open, knowing that there is a change in the law. When you get a change in the law about anything you take an entirely different view. You cannot really have it static. What the noble Lord is suggesting would be quite contrary to the principle of the Bill. Inserting a specific date, I would have thought, was much clearer and fairer, because everyone then knows exactly where they are.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: Is not the wording as it stands at the moment legislating against potential future owner-occupiers? Those are the only people who are really going to be affected. Those are the people who contribute to this country's high efficiency in farming. If they cannot, in the very small number of cases, perhaps with agreement with the present occupier, move a son into it to increase efficiency, then one probably is going to damage farming in perhaps a small number of cases because there will be only a small number of cases involved.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: I agree with my noble friend that it seems to be quite wrong that you should create two different types of farm ownership, because this is what it will mean. As Case IX(2) says:
"The court, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the question whether other accommodation is available for the landlord or tenant, is satisfied that no greater hardship would be caused by granting the order than by refusing to grant it."

481
I should like to claim that the person who is in fact the owner of the farm, who may require one of the cottages for his elderly mother or father, or for his young son or daughter, although he bought it after 12th April, should have the same right as somebody who happens to have owned it before. Also, the tenant is safeguarded because the court will decide to whom the greater hardship will be caused.
Lord SANDYS: I think that some very real points have been raised, particularly by my noble friends and also by the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, because this causes a situation to occur where an owner who died possessed of a farm with perhaps one or more farm cottages will now, according to the Bill as it stands, be unable to sell that property in a satisfactory manner; that is to say, in the manner in which farms are normally sold, with vacant possession of the tied cottages. This creates a real problem for the future owner of the property, which I think the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, pointed out, because this is a circumstance which could easily occur in purchases after 12th April. We are creating two classes of tied cottage in these circum-stances. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to look at this matter again, because we shall certainly wish to bring forward another Amendment at a later Stage With that, I think it would be a good plan at this stage to withdraw this Amendment.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, could I take up one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, made? She said that the man will have bought the property and he will have paid a lower price for it as a result of this Bill.
Baroness BIRK: No, I did not say that at all.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Yes, she did. With the greatest respect, that is exactly what the noble Baroness meant. She said that, knowing that this Bill is to be on the Statute Book somebody will then pay a lower price for the property. I think if we check in Hansard tomorrow that is what will emerge. If that is the case, this Bill is even more disgraceful, because what it is doing is taking away people's capital, taking away people's
482
money without any compensation whatsoever, and it is a total disgrace.
Baroness BIRK: I did not Say that at all. I said that if one buys a property, whether it is a farming property or an urban property, where there are already sitting tenants in part of it, it is the normal commercial payment for it that it will be lower than if you have empty and complete occupation. That is all I was saying, and the position is the same whether it is a farm or not. If the noble Earl is arguing that, in order to get what he sees as equity, people should be turned out of their tied cottages and made homeless so that somebody could buy the farm and have an empty farm and empty cottages, then he has made out a magnificent case for the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.25 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 42, line 25, at end insert—
("Case Alternative accommodation provided or arranged by housing authority
1. The housing authority concerned have made an offer in writing to the tenant of alternative accommodation which appears to them to be suitable, specifying the date when the accommodation will be available and the date (not being less than 14 days from the date of offer) by which the offer must be accepted.
OR
The housing authority concerned have given notice in writing to the tenant that they have received from a person specified in the notice an offer in writing to rehouse the tenant in alternative accommodation which appears to the housing authority concerned to be suitable, and the notice specifies both the date when the accommodation will be available and the date (not being less than 14 days from the date when the notice was given to the tenant) by which the offer must be accepted.
2. The landlord shows that the tenant accepted the offer (by the housing authority or other person) within the time duly specified in the offer.
OR
The landlord shows that the tenant did not so accept the offer, and the tenant does not satisfy the court that he acted reasonably in failing to accept the offer.
3.—(1) The accommodation offered in must the opinion of the court fulfil the conditions in this paragraph.
(2) The accommodation must be reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards proximity to place of work.
(3) The accommodation roust be reasonably suitable to the means of the tenant, and to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards extent.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has already been spoken to. I think that the situation has already been explained in some detail, but I should like to refer in particular to the situation where—
"The accommodation must be reasonably suitable to the needs of the tenant and his family as regards proximity to place of work."
We have already had a considerable debate on proximity to the place of work on the first Amendment we dealt with this afternoon, and in Standing Committee K in its Fifth Sitting there was a considerable argument which starts at column 202 of the Official Report and which I do not think we need repeat this evening. Nevertheless, if the Government have really given thought to this problem, we hope that they will have revised the brief which no doubt the noble Baroness is about to read to us and which was used by the Under-Secretary of State Mr. Armstrong on 28th June. I shall look forward with interest to see what reply the noble Baroness gives.
Baroness BIRK: I was not going to read out anything or say any more at all. I understood that when the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, withdrew Amendment No. 26, which is really only half of it, he was taking out this part in order to put it in somewhere else. He withdrew that Amendment and we had a reasonable debate on the whole thing. I took it for granted that the whole thing was withdrawn. I certainly was not going to start arguing it out again. I think I have said all I need to say on it.
Lord SANDYS: To reduce the length of our discussions—and I hope the noble Baroness will acknowledge this—I should be perfectly willing to withdraw it. When the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, spoke to the previous Amendment he naturally spoke to this one also but he did not move it at that time. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Effect of determination of superior tenancy, etc.]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 10, line 33, leave out ("occupies it under") and insert ("has").
The noble Baroness said: This is part of a long group of Amendments that I spoke to with Amendments Nos.13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19 and 20. I beg to move.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Goschen): The Question is, that this Amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". The Contents have it.
Earl FERRERS: I do not know whether this is in order, and the noble Viscount the Lord Chairman may have remarkably more refined ears than I have, but I never heard anyone say Content".
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: I will put the Question again. The Question is that Amendment No. 31 be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". The Contents have it.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Terms of the statutory tenancy]:
5.30 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 44, line 24, leave out ("could reasonably provide, though not available") and insert ("had provided for the occupier, but was not providing").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment has the same object as one tabled by the Opposition on Report in another place but which was then not discussed. I imagine, therefore, that it will be welcomed by noble Lords opposite. It is intended to make it clear that a land-lord under a statutory tenancy is to be under no obligation to provide services to a tenant which he never provided before the commencement of the statutory

485
tenancy. The present wording of paragraph 5 of Schedule 4 could be read as meaning that in certain circumstances a landlord might fall under such an obligation. But this is not the intention of the paragraph, and the Amendment is meant to remove the possibility of an interpretation of this kind.
Baroness YOUNG: I thank the noble Baroness, and the Amendment indeed meets an Opposition point was raised in another place and which makes much clearer what this paragraph of the Schedule means. As this has been so helpful in this case, I hope that we may on Report see if we can tidy up some of the other points that have been made. In the meantime, I am grateful for this one.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 45, line 5, at end insert—
("( ) It shall be a condition of the statutory tenancy that the tenant shall keep the premises in a clean condition and in tenantable and decorative repair.")
The noble Earl said: Appreciating that we are anxious to finish the Committee stage of the Bill tonight, I hardly need speak to this Amendment; it is so clear. Under the Bill the landlord has certain obligations, and correctly so, because it is obviously in his interest to keep property in repair and good order. It seems to me equally reasonable and in the tenant's interest that he should keep the internal decorations and the place generally clean and tidy. If he does not, then on his death or when he moves away not only will the landlord be landed with inordinately large expenses but the new tenant will have delay and difficulty while the place is being redecorated from top to toe. Perhaps it is exaggerating to say that it will need to be redecorated from top to toe, but it seems that any reasonable man would want to keep the property in which he is living in decent decorative condition, clean, tidy, painted and so on. The Amendment is not asking for silk hung wallpaper or anything of that sort; it simply asks that the place should be kept reasonably clean and tidy, reasonably well painted. This seems so reasonable and obvious that I should be wasting the Committee's time if I went on further about it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that we are anxious to move on. I wonder whether he realises that as the result of a point raised in Committee by the Opposition in another place, there was on Report inserted in Schedule 4(4) the words:
"… the tenant's obligation to use the premises in a tenant-like manner."
I should have thought that that covered the noble Earl's point. I appreciate that it is difficult to find one's way round some of these provisions, and having given him that explanation I will not go further into the matter unless he requires me to do so.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I had appreciated the insertion of the phrase "tenant-like manner" and I had hoped that the noble Baroness would explain its ancestry. Although the Amendment is rather longer, it is crystal clear whereas "tenant-like manner" is not very pleasant English.
Lord MIDDLETON: There does not appear to be any dispute between us on this matter. Under paragraph 2 there is a tenant's liability to repair, but that seems to be an inconvenient place to put it, and I should have thought that it would improve the drafting of the Schedule if something better were inserted about tenants' obligations, perhaps under paragraph 6, with a proper heading. We already have the heading "Landlord's obligation to repair" and I should have thought that a paragraph after that saying "Tenant's obligation to repair" would make it much clearer, rather than having to trace it all back to the paragraph headed "Covenant for quiet enjoyment, etc."
Baroness BIRK: I do not always follow the ways of lawyers. My reading of the Schedule leads me to think that, being in that position, it gave it a wider application compared with having it in rather more restrictive areas of the provision; but that is only my reading of it. Paragraph 7 would, I understand, have been the wrong place to put it from a legal point of view; please do not ask me why. I do not have the slightest idea why, but that it is what the lawyers say. I think it has a wider application where it is now, but evidently in paragraph 7 it cannot go.
The Earl of ONSLOW: noble Baroness says that this cannot go into

487
the paragraph headed "Tenant's obligations", even though it is a tenant's obligation. I appreciate that she is in a muddle because she admitted she was—
Baroness BIRK: I did not.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I quite understand that, because many of us are. However, her argument against the Amendment seems rather odd.
Baroness BIRK: I did not say I was in a muddle; I thought the noble Earl was, but I certainly did not use that expression. I said that I thought he might not have noticed the words that had been added. If he wants a fuller explanation as to why I cannot accept his Amendment, I can tell him that as drafted—this goes for his other Amendment, No. 34, although I appreciate that we are dealing with No. 33—it seeks to impose additional requirements on a statutory tenant. It would require him to keep the whole of the premises, the exterior and the interior, in a clean condition and in decorative repair, which would go further than what is asked for from tenants generally. It is not certain how the courts would interpret the provision, because it would in some respects directly clash with the provisions of Section 32 of the Housing Act 1961, which is applied by paragraph 6 of this Schedule and which makes the landlord responsible for external and structural repairs.
Further to the point I made about the addition we have made to paragraph 4, I would say that that paragraph includes implied terms such as
"… the landlord's covenant for quiet enjoyment and the tenant's obligation to use the premises …"
and paragraph 7 sets out other terms relating to the tenant's obligations. Looking at it again, I think that this is simply a breaking up of various obligations under different headings. I suppose that any of us could decide to shuffle them round one way or the other, but I suggest that as long as the provisions are there, that is the important thing. As for case law on this, Lord Denning, in a leading case—and I do not know whether the phrase "tenant-like manner" came from him—said:
"… the tenant must do little jobs about the place which a reasonable tenant would do …"
488
and examples he quoted were cleaning the chimney and unblocking the sink.
To that extent, the tenant is under paragraph 4 of the Schedule already obliged to keep the premises clean, but the obligation to do so is not the same as a repairing obligation. This, therefore, is where I part company with the noble Earl's Amendment, because if the tenant were made liable for keeping the premises in "tenantable and decorative repair", in accordance with the Amendment, that might impose an onerous burden on him, particularly if the house was already in a dilapidated state when he took it over. As a matter of law, he could not keep it in repair unless he first put it into repair, so he might be saddled with extremely large initial expenses where he would have to redecorate the place inside and out. It is for the reason that it goes very much further than any other obligations in law, although probably the noble Earl did not intend that the Amendment would put this sort of burden on the tenant.
Earl FERRERS: I thought there was going to be no difference between us. When the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that, after all, these Amendments are perfectly all right because they are already covered in the words "tenant-like repair", I thought she was saying precisely that what my noble friend was trying to achieve in these Amendments was already covered. But later the noble Baroness said that these Amendments went very much further than I thought my noble friend meant. There are two points here: first, if there is nothing between us in intent, which is that the tenant should keep his house in reasonable repair and reasonably decorated, I suggest that it should be put in the Bill. Secondly, if my noble friend's Amendments go far too wide by all means let us redraft the Amendments. I would hope that the noble Baroness would look at this again because I do not believe that there is any-thing of substance between us, except for the fact that I do not believe that the words, "tenant-like repair" are sufficiently specific to indicate that a tenant should look after his house.
I certainly do not think that my noble friend's Amendment is intended to mean that a tenant has to do up the whole house from scratch or has to keep the outside in repair. If the noble Baroness advises

489
that that would be the effect of the Amendment perhaps at Report stage she would be kind enough to consider another Amendment which would exclude these provisions. I do not think it is sufficient to leave the words, "tenant-like repair" as the sole criterion by which tenants would be obliged to look after their houses.
I would also ask the noble Baroness at Report stage whether she could find out why paragraph 7 is not the right place to put it. I know she brushed it off in a charming way by saying lawyers considered it was not the right place, but she had no idea why. With great respect, if my noble friend puts down an Amendment to this part of the Bill I think it is reasonable to expect the Government to be able to say why in fact it is unreasonable. The mere fact that lawyers say that it is not the right place is not a full enough answer as to why it is the wrong place.
Baroness BIRK: Certainly that point is taken. As the Opposition in another place had raised it, I genuinely thought that it had not been realised or had been overlooked that paragraph 4(2) had been inserted in the Bill. I am now in a situation where I ask how much more we can go on putting in. I think we have covered it as far as possible. If the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, says that he is quite sure his noble friend Lord Onslow did not mean that the tenant would have to do all this work, the way the Amendment is worded,
"… the tenant shall keep the premises in a clean condition and in tenantable and decorative repair"
goes so far beyond paragraph 4(2) that one must take these things in the way they will be interpreted. It may not be interpreted in this overwhelming way by some people, but once something is written into a Statute the words are interpreted in the way they are written. I think it would be wrong and most unfair for me to promise to come back and alter it on Report because I do not think we can go further than we have done in paragraph 4(2). I will certainly write to both noble Earls and explain, and perhaps enlarge on the "tenant-like manner", and try to give an explanation as to why it is in that place and cannot be in paragraph 7. It would be quite wrong for me
490
to hold out any hope of enlarging on this.
Earl FERRERS: I find the argument of the noble Baroness slightly difficult. In her opening remarks she said that she did not know whether we were mare that this had been put in the Bill. The inference was that, as it had been put in the Bill, in paragraph 4(2), these Amendments were unnecessary. She then went on to say that she could not possibly put them into the Bill due to the fact that they went very much wider than Paragraph 4(2). It seems to me that the two do not exactly equate. The Amendment is in my name as well as that of my noble friend Lord Onslow; therefore I take as much blame for the fact that perhaps it is inadequately drafted. I would only hope that the noble Baroness would be kind enough to look at this again. She said there is a limit to how far we can go in improving the Bill, but with, respect I would suggest that as yet the Government have not given one jot; therefore it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could concede the points which we are quite reasonably making. There is no Party political difference about this and the point could be put in the Bill just to make it clearer.
Baroness BIRK: I do not think the noble Earl is very fair in saying the Government have not given one jot. The reason that paragraph 4(2) is in the Bill is that the Opposition asked for it in another place. I was saying that perhaps this had not been noticed and these Amendments were roughly covering the point, but going far wider than we could accept and possibly wider than the drafters of the Amendment realised. It would put an onerous burden on a tenant and go further than any other Rent Act in its demands on the tenant. For that reason I am saying that I could not accept it.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: When the noble Baroness is looking at this ghastly phrase, "tenant-like repair", would she not consider whether there may not be various sorts of tenants. These are statutory tenants. Their type may be quite different from ordinary tenants or monthly tenants or some other sort of tenant. If possible, could she abolish the phrase altogether and put down something that means something?
Lord LEATHERLAND: I hope my noble friend will not be too disturbed about the criticism of the expression, "tenant-like". It is not such an unusual kind of word. We speak about things being done in a workmanlike manner; we talk about people having a businesslike attitude to life; of people having a sportsmanlike attitude to life. Surely, if we can understand what those words mean, we ought to be able to understand the meaning of "tenant-like".
Earl FERRERS: Being as generous-hearted as I can, I would say that this is a most absurd interjection. We are trying to put into the Bill something so that everyone knows exactly where they stand. The noble Lord says that everyone knows what is meant by "sportsmanlike" and vague phrases like that. I do not think it is good enough to equate the word, "tenant-like", which the noble Baroness says is specific, with a thoroughly vague phrase like "sportsmanlike". If those two are equatable, or equitable, then I think we ought to find something more specific than "tenant-like".
Lord LEATHERLAND: If I were a tenant, I should know what tenant-like duties I had to perform; if I were a land-lord and expected my tenant to perform tenant-like duties, I think I should understand what I wanted him to do.
Earl FERRERS: Perhaps the noble Lord would address his mind at some juncture to considering why the landlord and tenant Acts are so highly complicated if it is perfectly simple to know what they mean.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I suggest that British Acts of Parliament are not the place to start inventing new English words. As regards the Amendments, I do not think that we are quite so far apart as some of the arguments have seemed to say. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that one is not intending that the tenant should put on a new roof or paint the outside of the building, nor, as I say, did I intend with my Amendments that the tenant of a badly decorated cottage or house should immediately go out and spend a fortune on silk wallpaper to hang on the walls. What one hopes is that the tenant will keep the house in the state in which he
492
finds it and, for the sake of this particular argument, let us assume that he has found it in a reasonable state. He should keep it in that state—no better and no worse.
If "tenant-like" means only unblocking the sink and sweeping the chimney, any tenant who does not unblock the sink will find his kitchen flooded and himself unable to do the washing up and any tenant who does not sweep the chimney will find his drawing room filled with smoke so that he will not be able to have a fire. That is not being untenantlike, it is just being a complete buffoon. So I hope that this goes slightly further than unblocking the sink and sweeping the chimney and that it really means what my noble friends on this side of the House would like it to mean. If it is confined to those two matters, I am very much afraid that I shall have to come back to this point quite strongly on Report. I admit that the wording of the Amendment is open to misinterpretation and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for pointing that out to me. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.53 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 46, line 11, leave out from ("tenancy") to end of line 13 and insert ("including one as respect which an agreement under section 12 of this Act either fixes the rent or provides that no rent is payable")
The noble Baroness said: With this Amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 38. At present under the Bill a landlord under a statutory tenancy may by written notice claim either a fair rent or provisional rent depending on whether a rent has yet been registered for the dwelling-house in question. He may also by written notice claim rates which he or his head landlord bears. Clause 12, however, enables him to demand less than his full entitlement if he so wishes by agreement with the tenant. The upper limit to what he may demand in this way is set at provisional rent or registered rent plus the amount of rates borne by the landlord or head landlord and prevailing at the times the agreement is made; or else provisional rent or registered rent plus a variable amount equal to rates in

493
cases where the agreement specifically envisages the rent rising as rates increase.
This is not only unduly complex, as I am sure noble Lords will agree, but could also result in a strange anomaly. It would he possible for an agreed rent which included an element for rates to be higher than the level of provisional or registered rent net of rates. If therefore a landlord ended his agreement with a view to recovering in future his rent entitlement and his rates entitlement separately, he might find himself unable to take the first step of recovering the full rent entitlement because to do so he would have to serve a notice of increase. This would not be possible if he actually wanted to demand less than what he had hitherto been recovering.
These two Amendments should make for greater clarity in establishing a tenant's liability towards a landlord who chooses not to claim his full entitlement to rent. The Amendments would simplify the existing provisions by separating rent from rates entirely, which is really the basic point. The landlord and tenant would be able under Clause 12 to agree on a rent up to the provisional or registered level. Rates born by the landlord or his head landlord would be recoverable under Schedule 4 from the tenant at any time on service of written notice. This is already the case under the Bill when no Clause 12 agreement is in force, as I have mentioned. The separation should avoid the complexity inherent in the existing draft. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness for these Amendments and for her explanation. I am bound to say that reading Schedule 4 is really a very complicated business. I should not like to say that I have absolutely crystal clear in my mind what it means, so it is very helpful to have it on the record. What I believe it is important to understand is that where an agreement is reached under Clause 12, whereby the rent paid is less than the fair rent would provide, it is possible for the landlord to recover the full amount of rates under Schedule 4. With that under-standing, I am glad to accept these two Amendments.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Agreed rents]:
Baroness BIRK moved Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 11, line 41, leave out ("and any rent payable under subsection (12) below")
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos.37 and 42. I should say straight away that these Amendments are non-political, straightforward and meant to clarify. They re-order the provisions of Clause 12 dealing with rent payable after an agreement has come to an end but has not been replaced either by a fresh agreement or by the landlord serving notice to claim his full entitlement of provisional or registered rent. But they do not in any way alter the sense of the provision.
In such circumstances, by virtue of Clause 12(12), the rent payable continues to be the amount payable or last payable under the agreement. The new subsection stipulates that this amount must not exceed the registered rent level from the date that registration takes effect, and that any excess above this level is irrecoverable. It spells out what was already provided in more condensed fashion in the two passages being removed from sub-sections 4 and 5. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 12, line 1, leave out ("or under subsection (12) below")
Baroness BIRK moved Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 12, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 25.
Baroness BIRK moved Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 12, line 37, leave out from ("no") to ("and") in line 39 and insert ("notice of increase under section 13 or section 15 of this Act takes effect")
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting Amendment which deals with the period when a Clause 12 agreement comes to an end and the provisional or registered rent is not payable because no notice under Clause 13 or Clause 15 has been

495
served. It is simpler to follow and also makes it clear that any Clause 13 or 15 notice of increase is to lapse on conclusion of a subsequent agreement as to rent under Clause 12. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 12, line 41, leave out from ("payable") to first ("payable") in line 42 and insert ("or last")
6 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 12, line 44, leave out ("for that last rental period of") and insert ("or last payable, under")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 41 I also wish to refer to Amendment No. 40. The purpose of these drafting Amendments is to achieve consistency of wording with Clause 13(4) and with Clause 15(4). Clause 13(4) and Clause 15(4) lay down that a landlord in serving notice of increase to recover pro-visional or registered rent must state the rent payable, or last payable, under any Clause 12 agreement in force up till that point. Clause 12(12) lays down that if an agreement comes to an end and is not replaced either by a fresh agreement or by the landlord demanding provisional or registered rent, the tenant is to go on paying the same rent as under the agreement. Since Clauses 12(12), 13(4) and 15(4) all deal with the rent paid (or, in the case of a variable rent, with the last rent paid) under a Clause 12 agreement, there is every reason for their wording to be the same. It is far more consistent and far clearer. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 12, line 45, at end insert—
"( ) Where a rent is registered for the dwelling-house at any time after the termination of the agreement, as from the date from which the registration takes effect the rent payable under subsection (12) above shall not exceed the weekly or other periodical equivalent of the amount of the rent so registered; and if the rent so payable exceeds the limit imposed by the foregoing provision of this subsection, the amount of the excess shall be irrecoverable from the tenant."
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness YOUNG: As I understand it Clause 12 deals with a situation where there is a rent agreed between the landlord and the tenant. The clause says that this agreement, which will be a freely negotiated agreement, can be for only less than the fair rent would be if it were registered by a rent officer. I hope that I have got this position quite right. The point I want to put to the noble Baroness—and I hope that she and her colleagues will consider it to be a very serious one—is, if it is to be a freely negotiated agreement between the landlord and the tenant, why has it to be fixed with the registered rent as an upper limit?
One of the most serious aspects of the housing situation in the country today, I believe, is the number of houses—particu-larly private rented houses—which fall into disrepair for one reason or another. The fact of the matter is that the rents frequently do not cover the cost of repairs. We have just had a very long debate about repairs generally, and I think that we are all agreed that whatever interpretation we may make of repairs, we are talking about only internal repairs and not external repairs.
Of course it would be perfectly possible to argue that the farmer would keep his houses in good repair because he may hope to let them again to a farmworker, and therefore there is every incentive to keep them in good repair. But if for one reason or another he does not keep them in good repair, we could reach a situation where there would be almost no incentive to repair and so we should find another group of houses gradually falling into disrepair. I am not wishing in any way to open up the whole question of the Rent Acts which is outside the terms of the Bill. But what I cannot quite understand is why a freely negotiated agreement should have an upper limit put on it, provided it is a freely negotiated agreement. Furthermore, if for example the owner of the property makes some major improvement, such as installing central heating or carrying out some other major improvement which the tenant wants, and the tenant is perfectly prepared to agree a

497
higher rent because of the major improvement, why is that not acceptable? I should like to know what the noble Baroness thinks about this point.
Baroness BIRK: One of the problems in the Bill, as compared with the other Rent Acts, is that there is no history of a contractual rent and we enter straight onto the position of the tenant being a statutory tenant. So one has to start from somewhere and build on that; otherwise there are no boundaries at all. I think that I sent the noble Baroness the clause notes on Clause 12 which go into this matter and explain it, though perhaps not terribly simply, and I do not think that at this stage there is very much I can add without writing to the noble Baroness. I am a little puzzled here; it may be that there is something which I did not understand in her question. Surely the whole principle of the Rent Acts is that for statutory tenants they fix an upper limit to rent. The provisional rent is just an upper limit while a registered rent is being fixed, and therefore any agreements must be below these ceilings.
Here we are following the Rent Acts, and the only part where there are alterations is where there is no history because there has not been a contractual agreement in advance, so one has to start with a statutory tenancy. If the noble Baroness looks tomorrow at this point in Hansard and looks again at the notes on Clause 12, I believe that she will find that this position is fairly clear, at least as clear as it can be in this kind of legislation. But I should certainly undertake to write to her if I feel that I can clarify the matter any further.
Baroness YOUNG: I very much hope that the noble Baroness will do that. Of course I have read the note on the clause and I have already said how grateful I am for that note. The note on the clause says that the agreed rent cannot be more than the rent that would be fixed by a rent officer and become a registered rent. This is not a debating point. It is a very serious matter of public policy. I should have thought that the Government, as well as ourselves, and the farmers, the farmworkers and indeed everybody else want to see property improved. We want to see good property kept in good repair and bad property improved.
498
This is not a debatable point, and therefore the question to which we must address ourselves is how will we achieve this situation? I am not talking about a case where a tenant and a landlord have agreed a fair rent, because that is the agreement that is made. All I am trying to find—and this has been my object in a great many of the debates which I hive raised in your Lordships' House on this matter—are areas in which there might be some agreement where we could break out of the logjam that we are creating in housing. We have in the Bill a de novo situation which has not previously exist It is perfectly true, as the noble Baroness says, that these matters have not been on a contractual basis. They have been on licences, there have been tied cottages; they are in a very different situation.
All I am suggesting—and obviously this point would require a new clause, which I have not drafted—is that she might write to me on how she and her colleagues feel that the very real problem of raising the standards of a number of agricultural dwellings in this country is to he helped through the Bill. Does she not think that there is a case at least for lo Dicing at situations in which a tenant and a landlord could agree an increased rent for an improved property Is this not worth serious consideration?
Baroness BIRK: As I understand it at the moment, if the landlord carries out major improvements—this is probably what the noble Baroness means—and he wishes to recover a higher rent because the property is then that much better, he can apply for a new rent to be registered. If in those circumstances the tenant is also in agreement, it would seem to me that that would be an extremely simple matter. But I will write to the noble Baroness at greater length about this matter, if that would save time.
Earl FERRERS: I should like to refer to one point. My noble friend. Lady Young referred to clause stand part in order to get some clarification, and this is a perfectly normal and a proper thing to do. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said in answer that she was not quite certain what my noble friend was getting at. she said that apart from anything else my noble friend has received the notes on the clause and that these made the position fairly

499
clear. But with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I must point out that while notes on clauses are very helpful, and while it is much appreciated that we on this side can have them, I do not think that what the noble Baroness said was an adequate answer.
After all, we are trying to elicit problems and to find what is the answer in areas of difficulty. Solicitors, lawyers and people who will have to put this part of the Bill into operation when it becomes an Act will not have the advantage of notes on clauses. While I greatly appreciate the fact that we have had the notes, I think that what the noble Baroness said is not sufficient an answer to a point raised on clause stand part.
Baroness BIRK: I am sorry; I think the noble Earl really misunderstood me. I am very aware that the noble Baroness has an astonishing expertise in these matters. What I was meaning to say was that if, in addition to what was in the notes on clauses, there was some other point she had found or was raising, then I was anxious to know about it. I was really at that point bowing to her expertise and I was not brushing her aside on it. I was saying, "We start from that; and now is there something in addition on which you want further elucidation?" That was the object of the reply.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13 [Provisional rents]:
6.11 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 14, line 1, leave out ("1·5") and insert ("2")
The noble Earl said: Unlike the previous Amendment I moved, there can be absolutely no doubt whatsoever about what this particular Amendment means. It means: change from 1·5 to 2—and to my mind there is no room for any doubt about that. I move it because of the following factor. The average rateable value for agricultural cottages is approximately £80 a year. That is over the country as a whole, and I quite concede that there will be fairly wide variations around that average, as there are wide variations of standard of cottage. That
500
makes the provisional rent that will have to be paid something like £2·30 a week. The present gross earnings of the average person in industry are, I think, £71 a week. If somebody is leaving agriculture and has got himself a statutory tenancy under this Bill, he will probably be moving out of agriculture into some other job, and he will find himself with around this average earning of £70 a week. That means that the rent for his house will be 3 per cent. of his earnings. All my Amendment does is to move that percentage from 3 to 4 per cent. I quite concede that what I have said is not going to happen in every case; I quite concede that it is only an average and a probability. That percentage is less than his National Health contribution.
The next point is that the rent officers have tended to fix the rents considerably higher than this, and it would seem to me that it would be reasonable that a sharp jump should be avoided and that the man should know nearer the time what his rent is likely to be rather than be given an impression by the 1·5 multiplier on rateable value. There is one further point. Council house rents in the agricultural sector are between £4·50 and £5 a week. Admittedly, on my figure of £2·30 a week—I am hoping to raise it to something like, I think it is, £3·50 a week, but on my figure of £2·30 a week—there is to be added the actual rates to be paid, obviously, because council house rents include rates. We also know that council house rents are heavily subsidised. There has been argument about the degree of subsidy, but I am not going to enter into that now. For the reasons I have outlined—in other words, the average percentage of average wage, the difference between the rent that will be fixed by the rent officer and the provisional rent, together with the difference in rent between average council house rents and what would be obtainable under the clause as it stands—I beg to move this Amendment.
Lord ROBBINS: May I ask for an explanation? Page 14, line 1, prescribes the multiple as 1·5, the matter which is in dispute at the moment, but goes on to say:
"or such other number (whole or with a fraction) as the Secretary of State may by order prescribe".
I was wondering whether the noble Baroness could reveal to the Committee

501
the sort of considerations which might lead the Secretary of State to depart from the 1·5.
Baroness BIRK: May I first deal with the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow? He has pointed out that Clause 13 allows the farmer to charge a provisional rent—that is, the rent based on rateable value—and by his Amendment he wants to set the prescribed multiple at 2 instead of 1·5. This would mean that in around 70 per cent. of cases the pro-visional rent would be lower than the eventual registered rent; in other words, 30 per cent. of statutory tenants could find themselves paying higher provisional rents than their eventual registered rents. In our view, this would be an unacceptably high proportion, and would be most inequitable. Setting the prescribed multiple at 1·5, as the Bill proposes, means that in about 95 per cent. of cases the provisional rent would be likely to turn out lower than the registered rent. It is for this reason that we have opted for the 1·5 figure, which is likely to result in only a very few tenants finding that the provisional rent they have to pay is higher than the eventual registered rent.
We can seek to provide only rough justice during the provisional rent regime, where in most cases the provisional rent will be payable only for a limited period. The value chosen for the prescribed multiple must in the end be a matter of judgment, but since we want to keep to a minimum the number of statutory tenants who might be charged a pro-visional rent greater than the eventual registered rent, taking it all in all 1·5 seems a reasonable figure to choose. In moving his Amendment the noble Earl seemed to be advocating tying rent to a man's earnings, rather than to the house he inhabits, which seems to me rather an extraordinary doctrine. I do not know if that is what he meant, but that is what he was saying. But the rent is not based on the tenant's earnings; the rent is based on the house.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I did not advocate "tying it to". What I was pointing out was that the rent was "a percentage of", which is a very different thing.
Baroness BIRK: Before the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, gets up, perhaps I can try
502
to answer the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, as to the basis on which the Secretary of State would make a change. It would be on a rating revaluation.
Earl FERRERS: I was interested in what the noble Baroness said when she pointed out that if my noble friend's Amendment was accepted then in fact 70 per cent. of tenants who later became statutory tenants would pay more for the provisional rent than they would when the rent was registered and it became the registered rent. This seems to me surprising, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness could let the Committee know on what information she bases those figures; because it seems to me that a rateable value of £80, which is the average rateable value, in fact means that a person who stays on and becomes a statutory tenant would have to pay as a provisional rent only £120, which, as my noble friend said, was a little over £2 a week. As £80 as a rateable value is an average, that means that quite a number of houses presumably will be below the average; therefore the provisional rent in a number of cases will be less than £120 a year.
On October 25th the Government gave a Written Answer in another glace to a Question asking what is the current average level of rents for houses in the public centre. In col. 32 Mr. Douglas Mann gave a comprehensive Answer, which really said that local authority rents in the South East were 4·84; in East Anglia, £3·95; in the South West, £4·30; in the West Midlands, £3·96; in Wales £4 and so it goes on; and the average in England and Wales was £4·16 a week. This is considerably higher than the £120·00 which should be the average provisional rent applicable under the Bill as it now stands. I must say that clearly it would be wrong for the provisional rent to exceed the registered rent, once the rent officer has registered it. If my noble friend's Amendment were accepted, I should think that that would not be the case. If the noble Baroness thinks that is the case, I shall be grateful if she could say how she arrives at that fact.
Baroness BIRK: I am not surprised at the difficulty of the noble Earl because this is extremely complicated; but I think the noble Earl misunderstood what I said.

503
I said that 30 per cent. of the statutory tenants could find themselves paying a higher provisional rent than the eventual registered rent, and that in our view that would be an unacceptably high proportion. But I prefaced that by saying that the Amendment which would set the prescribed multiple at 2, would mean that in around 70 per cent. of the cases the provisional rent would be lower than the eventual registered rent. In other words, 30 per cent. of the statutory tenants could find themselves paying higher provisional rent than the registered rent. This was the situation under the Amendment.
If the Committee will bear with me for a moment, as this is very complicated, I will briefly show the thinking behind it. The Tavistock survey showed that the vast majority of farm workers living in tied accommodation paid no rent at all. While employment continues, the Bill will do nothing to change this arrangement between the farmer and the employees, but once the employment ceases the farmer may naturally wish to charge a rent for the dwelling house. In many houses, he will still only wish to charge a nominal rent. This is allowed for in Clause 12 which provides for the landlord and tenant to agree a rent subject to certain limits. In other cases the farmer may wish to recover the maximum rent permissible. For these cases, Clauses 14 and 15 allow him to seek registration of a fair rent. The registration process could take some time, and we agree that the farmer should not be tied to a nil rent or a low rent until the process has been completed. I do not think there is any difference between us. Nobody has raised the question of there not being a need for a provisional rent.
In setting its level—and this is the point at issue—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. This is bearing in mind that hitherto he has been receiving little or no rent. Secondly, the provisional rent is deliberately designed not to exceed the fair rent which would be payable if a rent were registered for the dwelling house. Fair rents are, after all, the maximum entitlement permitted throughout the generality of the Rent Act
504
legislation, and to encourage a possibly higher limit in these special circumstances would hardly—and I am sure noble Lords will agree—be justifiable.
It was in bearing in mind these two aims that we undertook an analysis of the statistics of rent registered in 1975. These are the latest figures available. The statistics used relate to first registrations of rents by rent officers for unfurnished houses with rateable values in the range of £50 to £100 in the non-metropolitan districts of England and Wales. These statistics were selected since it is under-stood that the majority of tied cottages are let unfurnished and have rateable values in the £0 to £100 range, and since it is unlikely that there would be many agricultural tied cottages in the metropolitan districts or in Greater London.
Our analysis yielded the result that I outlined at the beginning. At the end of the day, it is, I agree, a matter of judgment on which figure one settles. Our judgment reflects the criteria which I have just out-lined, plus the fact that we are concerned inevitably with a rough and ready figure. We accept that. Our view was that the figure of 2 suggested by the noble Earl would bear too harshly on too many tenants. I hope now that I have gone into detail your Lordships will share my view on this.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Baroness has possibly missed out something which I thought she was going to come to when she said that in 1975 her Department carried out a survey of registered rents in the rateable values between £50 and £100. I do not think she told us the result of that survey. What was the average provisional rent?
Baroness BIRK: I think the average provisional rent comes out at about £80. We have been working on an average of £80. That is the rateable value because there would not have been a provisional rent. We are starting from scratch and moving from provisional rents to statutory tenancies, from a protected occupancy to a statutory tenancy, of which there is no history because of this progression. We have gone from nothing, or an arrangement between the farmer and the employee, into this situation. There is nothing to go on except the first registration of rent.
Earl FERRERS: I see that this is a technical and difficult point. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be good enough to give this matter consideration and write to me and to my noble friend. I thought that the point she was going to make was that there had been a survey conducted of provisional rents in similar cottages to agricultural tied cottages—provisional rents which are fixed by rent officers in agricultural areas. If that is so, this will be of great help. We are at one with her in not wishing to put the provisional rent higher than the registered rent. It seems to me that this would be unlikely to be the case if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted. If the noble Baroness would be kind enough in due course to see whether there are any statistics or facts to say what is the average registered rent this would help us before the next stage.
Viscount GAGE: Would the noble Baroness be able at the same time to explain why it should be so much harsher for a privately-owned house to have a certain rent which is below the rent of a council house? Why should it be harsher in one case than in another?
Baroness BIRK: It varies. In some areas it is lower and in others higher. We are concerned with trying to get it right in the transitional period. I agree that it is a little hit or miss, but we are trying to find a prescribed multiple that will cause the least hardship to most of the people. When we are starting from a situation, the most reliable figure is the Tavistock Survey which showed that the vast majority of farm workers living in tied accommodation were paying no rent at all.
We start from a non-knowing situation and go forward to try to find the right figure before one gets to the registered rent. I will write to the noble Earls and let them have any further information. I fear, unless I am wrong, that there are not many other statistics that I can let them have for the reasons that I have given.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Baroness said that if my noble friend's Amendment were accepted that would put 30 per cent. of the people above the registered rent. There is obviously some reason for her using that figure.
Lord MONSON: Could the noble Baroness say whether the Government will look favourably upon an Amendment at Report stage which will apply the multiple of 1·5 to the gross value rather than the rateable value? This will produce a slightly higher interim rent and it seems a reasonable compromise between the status quo and the level of rent which will be produced by the noble Earl's Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: May I consider that? I will write to the noble Lord on that matter.
The Earl of ONSLOW: For once I do not think that we are in a great deal of disagreement with the noble Baroness in spite of the clarity of my Amendment. It is important to find out how we arrived at this 30 per cent. figure. The noble Baroness said before that this is a totally de novo situation. One wonders how much the 30 per cent. is a "guestimate", or whether it is something slightly more accurate than that. Leaving that aside, there is one other point which has not brought out. There has been a slight tendency to "under-rateable value"—if that is the right term—cottages for use by agricultural workers. This may put a different complexion on it. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Registered rents.]:
6.32 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 15, line 29, leave out ("then, subject to section 16 of this Act")
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is a technicality. It deletes superfluous wording. A notice of increase served by a landlord demanding his entitlement to recover a registered rent is already qualified, in terms, by Clause 16(3) which introduces a phased limit where such is appropriate. A forward reference to Clause 16 is unnecessary, and the Amendment removes it.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Phasing of rent increases]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 16, line 21, leave out ("beginning during") and insert ("falling within")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 45 I will speak to Amendments Nos.48, 49, 50, 51, 53 and 54. The purpose of these Amendments is to remove any doubts as to a landlord's entitlement to rent under the phasing provisions. It is not at present clear what rent a landlord could recover if an increased rent fell due in the middle of a rental period. These Amendments have the effect that a new level of rent permitted under the phasing provisions can he recovered from the time the new limit applies irrespective of the fact that this may he in the middle of a rental period. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 16, line 22, leave out ("13(6)")
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment deletes a mistaken reference to a subsection which has no relevance to the phasing provisions. Mention of Clause 13(6) is an error and therefore we have removed it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 16, line 28, after ("5") insert ("to this Act")
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting Amendment. As a matter of drafting style, Schedule 5 ought to be clearly anchored to the Bill whenever a reference to it occurs. This is what the Amendment provides. I beg to move.
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
6.36 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: This clause refers to the phasing of rent increases, and the situation is that when a person who has been an employee on a farm gives up his employment and remains in the house thereafter, as the noble Baroness explained
508
in a previous Amendment, the employer may under this Bill impose a provisional rent until such time as the rent officer determines what the level of a registered rent should be. This may be a matter of a couple of months, or it may be longer. Usually, I should have thought that it would be in terms of two months. During that period, the tenant pays a provisional rent. Then the rent officer fixes what he believes to be a right and fair rent which then becomes the registered rent. That applies, as I understand it, forthwith.
In two or three years' time the landlord is entitled to ask for a new registered rent. He may say that the conditions have altered and the rent fixed by the rent officer is inadequate. When the rent officer fixes the subsequent rent, then I believe Clause 16 operates. The increase in rent is not allowed to be taken forthwith but has to be spread over a period of three years. If I may quote an example, a provisional rent may be fixed at £3 a week. The farmer will ask the rent officer to register a rent. The rent officer will say that the correct rent is £6 a week. I am using hypothetical figures. That £6 a week rent is payable forthwith. It may be that in three years' time the farmer will go to the rent officer and say: "Inflation has gone completely out of control, will you come along and fix a new rent?" The rent officer may say that the new rent should be £15 a week. The difference of £9 a week is not obtainable immediately but over a period of years. The first year will see an increase of £3, the second an increase of £3 and the third year an increase of £3. It is only at the end of the third year that the tenant pays the rent which the rent officer considered was the acceptable rent three years previously.
By the time the tenant pays that full rent it may well be that the time is due for the rent officer to make yet another reassessment. The result is that you are perpetually out of cog. The rent officer declares a rent suitable for 1976 but by the time it is paid in full it is 1979, by which time the rent should be readjusted. I know that the reason for this is that it follows the lines of the 1968 Rent Act and I am sure that that will he cited as a good precedent. It may be a precedent but it is not a good precedent, because if there is any purpose in having a fair rent registered it must mean, by all reasonable considerations, that that is the rent

509
appropriate for that house at the time the house was assessed. Therefore it would seem reasonable that that rent should be payable forthwith and not in three years' time. I should be grateful, therefore, if the noble Baroness would be kind enough to explain why this clause as it is drafted is necessary.
6.42 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: In the first place, if I understood the noble Earl correctly I think he is mistaken, because the full rent comes at the end of the second year and the beginning of the third year. That is when payment of the full rent is liable. I do not think he said that. I thought he said first, second and third years. It is, however, at the end of the second year and beginning of the third year. As he rightly says, this clause and related Schedule 5 contain provisions concerning the phasing of rent increases payable by statutory tenants under the Bill, and they are, as I know he is aware, very similar to those in Section 7 of and Schedule 2 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975. They have been modified slightly in two ways in order to fit in with the way in which statutory tenancies under the Bill arise. The clause and Schedule provide in essence that increases in rent up to a newly registered rent level are to be phased in up to three annual stages, depending on the size of the overall increase. Where the landlord provides services and is unable to control their cost himself then he is able to recover those costs immediately.
The provisions themselves cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to be straightforward, but the idea behind them is simpler to grasp. The first of the two modifications to the clause and Schedule is that under this Bill phasing will take place only at the second and subsequent registrations of a rent under a tenancy created by the Bill. This is because in the vast majority of cases workers will have been, as we have just discussed on a previous Amendment, paying no rent or low rents during employment; hence it is right that the landlord should be able to recover the first registered rent in full. Under the Rent Acts, on the other hand, the statutory tenant will have been paying a contractual rent prior to registration, and phasing rightly applies where that is replaced by a higher rent.
510
The second modification we have made arises from the fact that tenants protected under the 1968 Act may find that their rent increases are subject to phasing not under the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act 1975 but under the Housing Finance Act 1972. That happens only on a minority of occasions where a newly registered rent has to take account of improvements which attract grant aid from the local authority. Application of a régime akin to that of the 1975 Act already entails writing into the Bill provisions of some complexity. The additional insertion of undoubted intricacies so as to cater for what is likely to be a far from significant minority of cases, hardly seems justified in the context of this Bill. So we reach the conclusion that a less complex régime is more likely to be workable and comprehensible both to farmers and farm workers alike. Therefore, Clause 16 and Schedule 5 have been modelled exclusively on the phasing provisions introduced by the 1975 Act.
So much, then, for the differences between the Rent Act phasing and that suggested under the Bill. What is of course similar is the underlying principle that landlords and tenants should basically be treated alike so far as rent is concerned and therefore it would be manifestly unfair if under the Rent Acts tenants were liable to pay increases in phased instalments whereas under this Bill they were liable to pay a full fair rent immediately an increase was registered.
I can only repeat that these provisions, I agree, are complicated and it will certainly be necessary for explanatory material on the Bill, which my Department will prepare, to explain their effect. I am sure the noble Earl will agree that that is essential. I think it is possible to feel more confident about the fact that since the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act came into force over 18 months ago the Rent Officer's Service has already gained considerable experience of the phasing provisions in the context of the Rent Act. Therefore I believe that the difficulties on the ground will not be as fearsome as the intricacies of the text of the law might lead all of us to fear. I am sorry that this has had to be a rather complicated explanation but it is an extremely complicated matter, as the noble Earl obviously recognised.
Lord JANNER: May I make one comment about this matter? When the rent has been assessed by the rent officer, the persons who occupy the houses to which we are referring are in precisely the same position as any other tenant of a house where the rent has been fixed, and it is unreasonable, is it not, that once that situation has arisen there should be a difference between the future phasing or the future assessments and those at present existing with regard to other houses which do not come within the purview of this Act. It is as simple as that. In my view, and I think in the view of all reasonable people, there seems to be no reason why a distinction should be drawn between these houses and the houses which are at present under the Rent Acts.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her detailed reply and I thought the reply in essence would be what she gave and indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Janner, said. That is where we come into such a difficulty, however, because if we want to alter anything we are told, "Ah no, there is a precedent for this". The object of putting down this Amendment to leave out Clause 16 was to register my mild, mellowed protest of the fact that the whole thing, whether in this Act or in the 1968 Rent Act, is an absurdity. If you get a rent officer to register a rent in 1976 for what the house is worth in 1976 to a tenant, then it seems to me to be quite absurd to say you need only pay that in 1979 when of course the rent will probably and quite rightly be different. If the Statutes which are on the book now are such as to be unreasonable then I suppose the noble Baroness and her Government can only follow such unreasonableness by making this Act unreasonable too. But where you are starting afresh, monkeying around with the whole of the agricultural cottage system, it seems reasonable to me that if there was some provision in a previous Act which was not sensible and not reasonable it should be corrected in this Bill. I did not expect for one moment that the noble Baroness would admit that the previous Act was wrong or was stupid or should be amended; I only wanted to draw attention to the fact that I think it was wrong and stupid and should be amended, and I am only sorry that she will not agree to it.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 5 [Phasing of Rent Increases]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Nugent of Guildford): As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has already spoken to Amendments Nos.48, 49, 50 and 51, I will move them formally.
Amendments moved—
Page 47, leave out lines 40 to 42.
Page 48, line 1, leave out ("rental period which begins during") and insert ("period which falls within")
Page 48, line 3, leave out ("rental period which begins during") and insert ("period which falls within")
Page 48, leave out lines 5 and 6.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
6.51 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 49, line 21, leave out paragraph 3.
The noble Earl said: We come now to a similar part of the Bill but it is contained in the Schedule that refers to Clause 16 which we have just discussed. I put down Amendment No. 52A in the hope that the noble Baroness would he able to explain exactly what it means. In Schedule 5 we have a set of formulae by which the rents should be increased, and paragraph 3(2) reads:
"The permitted increase for a rental period which begins during the first year of the period of delay is an increase to the greater of the following amounts, namely—

(a) PRL + SE + ⅓ [(RR-(PRL + SE))];

(b) PRL + SE + SS".

Paragraph 3(3) reads:
"The permitted increase for a rental period which begins during the second year of the period of delay is an increase to the greater of the following amounts, namely—

(a) PRL + SE + ⅔ [(RR-(PRL + SE))];

(b) PRL + SE + SS".

I think that is the biggest amount of mumbo-jumbo that I have ever heard in all my life. The funny thing is that there sits the noble Lord, Lord Peart, the Lord Privy Seal, who is such a distinguished ex-Minister of Agriculture.
Yesterday when the noble Lord referred to the Bill I was delighted to hear him say that he was lucky to be conducting an agricultural Bill, a subject which used to be his responsibility. I do not believe that this kind of formulae could possibly have emanated from the Ministry of Agriculture. Quite clearly it emanated

513
from the Department of the Environment. As I pointed out at Second Reading, the extraordinary part of it is that in the Bill there is all this paraphernalia about increasing rents when at the moment 84 per cent. of those who occupy tied cottages do not pay any rent at all.
The essence of a Bill such as this is that it should be understood by both farmers and farmworkers as they are the people who will be involved; but I cannot understand it. Your Lordships may say that is not surprising but I doubt whether many other people could understand it, and I find that it is extraordinary that we should have something like this put into a Bill.
This Bill revolves around such matters as "the agreed rent", "the variable rent", "the fair rent" or "the registered rent", "the provisional rent", "the previous rent limit", "the rental period", "the rent officer", "the rent assessment committees". In answer to an Amendment the other day the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that £5 million is all that it will cost to set up this paraphernalia. But not one house will be built and no housing will be provided by this Bill for any farmworker. All the Bill does is to jam up the whole system and make it totally incomprehensible unless you are a "super-duper" expert. I have no doubt that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is a "super-duper" expert, in which case I shall be delighted to know from her exactly what it means and why on earth it is necessary to have such a provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
6.55 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: I know that the noble Earl is teasing and that he understands it perfectly well. It is crystal clear but he wants to have his bit of fun and he is quite entitled to it. The noble Earl has criticised it for its complexity but I do not think that it is more complex than the phasing provisions in the 1972 Housing Finance Act. This formulae is exactly the same as that contained in Schedule 2 to the Housing Rents and Subsidies Act. If the noble Earl would like me to explain what all the figures mean, I will do so. It is a fairly awesome task, but never mind.
Paragraph 3 sets out the basis on which permitted increases in rent in the first and
514
second year of the period of delay are to be calculated. When one has something like this, it is rather like having scientific formulae. Therefore there is a need for guidance to rent officers so that they can explain it to landlords and tenants. I do not think that you need to have the dog and bark yourself. So long as somebody finds that it is quicker and easier to use the formulae and then can advise land-lords and tenants, that is its point.
Paragraph 3(1) defines the permitted increase (subject to paragraph 3(4)) as an increase calculated in accordance with paragraph 3(2) (first year of period of delay) or paragraph 3(3) (second year of period of delay). That seems to be quite simple. It also defines the terms used in the calculation: PRL for previous rent limit (defined in paragraph 1(1) of the Schedule); SE for service element (defined in paragraph 2); RR for registered rent and SS for specified sum (defined in paragraph 1(1) as 40p a week in the first year of the period of delay, plus a further 40p a week in the second year).
Paragraph 3(2) sets out the formulae to be employed in calculating the permitted increase for a rental period beginning in the first year of the period of delay—that is, the year beginning on the date of registration of a rent. This permitted increase is an increase of the rent to the greater of the two sums calculated as follows: first, by adding the previous rent limit and the service element (if any), and adding to the resulting total one-third of the difference between it and the registered rent. Then you have the answer to that. Secondly, by adding the previous rent limit, the service element (if any), and 40p a week (the specified sum). To make the clear even clearer, may I give an example. Let us suppose that a rent is registered at £6.50 a week, of which 50p is noted as attributable to the service costs. Previous rent was £5.25 a week, of which 30p was attributable to services. This means that the services element is thus 20p. Therefore under the first calculation, £5.25 (PRL) plus 20p (SE) amounts to £5.45. The difference between this and £6.50 (RR) is £1.05. One-third of this is 35p. Hence PRL+SE+⅓ (RR-(PRL+SE)), or £5.25 + 20 + 35, yields £5.80. I have further examples of this kind and could go on reading them, but as we have reached seven o'clock and as the noble and learned Lord, Lord

515
Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich are here to carry on the next business perhaps we should leave it at that. As I am quite sure that the noble Earl is by now absolutely clear about the mathematical formulae and appreciates that it would make it much more complicated if it were all read out, I shall desist.
Earl FERRERS: I am delighted that I put down my Amendment because I would not have missed that explanation from the noble Baroness for all the tea in China. I am indebted to her and I merely say this to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Peart: that when we are trying to make life more easy, for goodness sake! let us not make it more complicated. The noble Lord would have done far better to have saved his £5 million by not putting all this into the Act. However, I willingly withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 49, line 26, leave out ("rental period which begins during") and insert ("period which falls within").
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 49, line 31, leave out ("rental period which begins during") and insert ("period which falls within").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 54.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: Are we not going to stop now and take the Consideration of Commons Amendments to the Bail Bill?
Lord STRABOLGI: I rather thought that we could have finished at the end of the question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?, but if the noble Baroness wishes to raise a further point, I suggest that we halt the Committee stage now in order to take other business and, subject to the completion of that other business, it is proposed that the Committee should reassemble at 7.45 p.m.
I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

BAIL BILL [H.L.]
7.3 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND AMENDMENTS TO BE MOVED TO CERTAIN OF THE COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (137) as first printed for the Commons]

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.1–2.]
Clause 2, page 3, line 5, leave out "to custody" and insert "into the custody of the court or of the constable (according to the requirements of the grant of bail)"
Clause 2, page 3, line 16, leave out "to custody at" and insert "into the custody of"
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: 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 and 2. With the leave of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 42. The purpose of these Amendments is to clarify the law on the position of a defendant who has surrendered in accordance with the requirement attached to the grant of bail to him. The general principle underlying these Amendments is that when a defendant surrenders as required, he is surrendering himself into the custody of the court. This does not mean that he must forthwith be placed in confinement if, as often occurs in practice, his case is not called immediately. All it means is that he is in the hands of the court, which may issue such directions as seem appropriate. Ordinarily speaking, of course, a defendant who arrives at a court to surrender to his bail will simply be told to remain in the waiting room until his case

517
is called. If however he then absents himself without permission, and is not there when his case is called, the court, if satisfied that this is necessary, will normally issue a warrant for his arrest. The Amendment (No. 10) to Clause 7 explicitly provides that this may be done. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not think I need take up the time of the House with this. It is highly technical and I do not think we have any objection on this side of the House.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.3–4.]
Clause 3, page 4, line 8, at end insert—
'(d) he makes himself available for the purpose of enabling inquiries or a report to be made to assist the court in dealing with him for the offence'
Clause 3, page 4, line 30, leave out without prejudice to subsections (3) to (4) 'and insert subject to subsection (3)'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.3 and 4. These Amendments are consequential on the later amendments to Clause 4, which extend to persons remanded for inquiries after conviction the presumption in favour of the grant of bail which is created by that clause. The first Amendment is to Clause 3(6), which gives a court power when granting bail to impose "such requirements as appear to the court to be necessary to secure that the defendant surrenders to custody, does not commit an offence while on bail, and does not interfere with witnesses or otherwise obstruct the course of justice". This Amendment enables the court, when remanding a person on bail for inquiries or a report, to impose a condition that the defendant will make himself available for the purpose of enabling the inquiries or report to be made.
The second Amendment amends Clause 3(9) of the Bill, which, in its present form is designed to preserve
518
Section 26(3) and (4) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952. Its effect is to remove from Clause 3(9) the reference to Section 26(4) (relating to inquiries to be made on committal for trial) which is to be repealed as no longer required. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House Goth agree with the Commons in the sail Amendments—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I have rather greater doubt about this, but I do not think we will proceed with the matter in any detail, so therefore I will say no more.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.5–7.]
Clause 4, page 4, line 35, leave out from 'Act' to end of line 37.
Clause 4, Page 5, line 10, at end insert—
'(3A) This section also applies to a person who has been convicted of an offence and whose case is adjourned by the court for the purpose of enabling inquiries or a report to be made to assist the court in dealing with him for the offence.'
Clause 4, Page 5, line 12, at end insert—
'(4A) In Schedule 1 to this Act "the defendant" means a person to whom this section applies and any reference to a defendant whose case is adjourned for inquiries or a report is a reference to a person to whom this section applies by virtue of subsection (3A) above.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments 5, 6 and 7 en bloc. This group of Amendments widens the application of Clause 4 of the Bill (which creates a presumption in favour of the grant of bail) so that it applies not only to accused persons but also to persons who are convicted of an offence and who are remanded before sentence for inquiries or a report to be made. The circumstances in which bail need not be granted to such a person are set out in the Amendments to Schedule 1. They include the same circumstances as for accused persons. In addition the Amendments provide that bail tray also be refused to convicted persons remanded for inquiries or a report if it would be impracticable to complete the inquiries or make the report without keeping the defendant in custody. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HALISHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, again I think it is futile to have a long debate about this. I have much greater doubts about the circumstances in which bail should be granted to convicted persons when they are remanded for any reason, but I do not think we ought to take up the time of the House. The Government have made their decision and the Commons have had a debate.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.8–12.]
Clause 7, page 8, line 35, leave out 'to custody at' and insert 'into the custody of'
Clause 7, page 8, line 36, leave out at the court' and insert 'to custody'
Clause 7, page 8, line 37, at end insert—
'(1A) If a person who has been released on bail in criminal proceedings absents himself from the court at any time after he has surrendered into the custody of the court and before the court is ready to begin or to resume the hearing of the proceedings, the court may issue a warrant for his arrest; but no warrant shall be issued under this subsection where that person is absent in accordance with leave given to him by or on behalf of the court.'
Clause 7, page 8, line 39, leave out 'to custody at' and insert 'into the custody of'
Clause 7, page 12, line 17, leave out 'at' and insert 'before'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.8 to 12 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 13.]
Clause 11, page 13, line 39, after remanded insert 'committed or kept'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. This is a minor drafting Amendment designed to clarify Clause 11(7) of the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 14.]
Clause 13, page 14, line 23, after "exception of" insert "so much of section 8 as relates to entering into recognizances in Scotland and"
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. This is a technical Amendment and is consequential upon an amendment made by this House on Report to Clause 8 enabling a person in Scotland who wishes to stand surety for a person granted bail in criminal proceedings by a court in England or Wales to enter into his recognizance in Scotland before the Scottish police. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 15.]
Schedule 1, page 15, leave out lines 3 and insert—

PERSONS ENTITLED TO BAIL: SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS PART I DEFENDANTS ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF IMPRISONABLE OFFENCES
Defendants to whom Part I applies
1. Where the offence or one of the offences of which the defendant is accused or convicted in the proceedings is punishable with imprisonment the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule apply."
7.10 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendments 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30. Perhaps I may add that I will deal with the specific point raised in the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Foot—No. 22A—when he moves it. The main purpose of this Amendment is to amend the first Schedule so as to apply the presumption created by Clause 4 in favour of the granting of bail to a convicted person remanded in custody for inquiries before sentence, and to confine the provisions of the Schedule to those convicted of imprisonable offences.

521
When the Bill first went to another place, Schedule 1 related only to persons accused of offences and did not deal with persons who had been convicted but were awaiting sentence. Several noble Lords, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, criticised the Bill for not providing specifically for persons remanded for inquiries or a report. The Government were unable in the time available to carry out the necessary consultations and put down suitable Amendments. On behalf of the Government, I gave undertakings that we would hold these discussions and put down Amendments in another place, and for the most part the extensive Amendments introduced in another place, constituting Amendments Nos.17 to 30 on the Order Paper, represent the changes agreed in another place to meet the points raised in this House.
My Lords, the Schedule as recast is divided into three parts. Part I relates to a person accused or convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment. Part II relates to defendants accused or convicted of offences which are not punishable with imprisonment, and, as noble Lords will expect, the grounds on which bail will be refused will get more limited in this case than where the offence is punishable with imprisonment. Part III contains definitions common to both the earlier parts. The introduction of these Amendments fulfils undertakings given during the Third Reading debate in this House, and I think they meet the points raised on that occasion. We went into this matter with some substantial degree of care, given the fact that we occupied quite a substantial amount of time on these issues. I hope that the noble Lords who participated in the debates on this occasion will feel we have fulfilled the undertakings which I then gave on behalf of the Government.
There is one other point I have to make. Amendment No. 22 adds to the Schedule a new paragraph (5A) based on Section 18(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. This paragraph provides that where the defendant's case is adjourned for inquiries or report, the defendant need not be granted bail if it appears to the court that it would be impracticable to complete the inquiries or make the report without keeping the defendant in custody. The term "impracticable" in fact has been taken from the 1967 Act,
522
as I have indicated, and has the support of the Magistrates' Association. There are some circumstances in which it is impracticable to obtain a report except by remanding the defendant in custody, and although these have diminished they do still occur and must be provided for.
First of all, there is the case of the defendant who cannot be relied on to turn up for the inquiries or for the report, either because he is too mentally disturbed, or because he is unwilling to have the inquiries carried out at all. Secondly, there is the group of people on whom a satisfactory report can only be prepared while the defendant is in custody. In 1973, the Prison Department, oil behalf of the Working Party on Bail Procedures in Magistrates' Courts, consulted governors and medical officers on this matter. The replies showed that although such people formed only part of the defendant's remanded in custody, nevertheless, they were a significant part. In general they were itinerants, often mentally disordered, often verminous, often drug-takers or alcoholics with no relatives or friends and unlikely to remain in any one place. That is what I showed here on this group of Amendments, although I realise, with regard to the point I have just been speaking on, that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has an Amendment which we will discuss in a few moments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said. Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, although I am not opposing this Amendment at all, I think that in cases which arise in relation to persons convicted as to whose, general mental effectiveness and reliability there are serious questions—because this is what is really meant—there is a consider-able doubt as to whether the provisions of this Bill should apply to them in the same way as they apply to people awaiting trial and whose presumption of innocence, therefore comes to their aid. The great danger in all these cases—and I quote from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—is that those of mental in-stability, those who do not remain in one place, those who are verminous or drug-takers will go on committing offences while these reports are going on. The virtue of letting them out has to be set

523
against the danger to the public involved. As I have said, I do not think it is worth while making a great issue of this, and I recognise, of course, the public policy point, which I think obsesses the Home Office, about clearing the gaols of unwanted inhabitants. But I myself rather doubt whether they are not going rather far with this.
Lord FOOT: My Lords, it would be ungracious of me not to acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has fulfilled the undertakings he gave. I should like to reserve what I have to say to my Amendment, but I did not want the occasion to pass with the noble Lord thinking that I was ungrateful.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 16.]
Schedule 1, page 15, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert—
'2. The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that it is probable that the defendant, if released on bail'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16. For rather obvious reasons, I should like also to speak to Amendment No 16A at the same time, because otherwise we shall get ourselves into a rather complicated procedural situation. These Amendments concern the way in which the court has to approach the various criteria for the grant or refusal of bail. Commons Amendment No. 16 restores the wording of the Bill as introduced in your Lordships' House, as I am quite sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, will recall. On a Division, the House ensured that for the words "there is an unacceptable risk that" were substituted for the words "that it is probable that".
Following extensive discussion in Committee in another place, the probability formula was restored on a Division and it is this formula which the House is invited to approve in Amendment No. 16. However, the House will have observed that the Government put down an Amendment to Amendment No. 16—this is No. 16A—which, if approved, would have the effect of substituting for the words "it is probable" the words "there
524
are substantial grounds for believing". Dissatisfaction has been expressed at various times, both in this House and in another place, that neither the probability formula nor the unacceptable risk formula is the right means of expression. The purpose of Amendment No. 16A is to offer to the House what we hope will prove a generally acceptable formula to define the way in which the courts shall approach the bail decision.
My Lords, I accept that we must start by recognising that no single phrase can deal with the basis on which the courts take these decisions. The Bill recognises this by setting out in what was paragraph 7 of the Schedule of the Bill as it left this House the facts to which courts should have regard when coming to a decision. Whatever words we include in paragraph 2 are qualified and extended by the later paragraph which the House will recollect was inserted at the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone.
The House will remember that when we discussed this matter at an earlier stage several noble Lords suggested that we had not yet found an entirely satisfactory form of words, and invited the Government to put forward a new one. We were unable to take this up at the time, because, frankly, we could not think of anything better than the words already discussed. As I have indicated, when the matter was discussed in Committee in another place the majority of the Committee favoured a return to the original word "probable"; and the only alternative put forward was a fresh formula which would have substantially weakened the presumption in favour of the grant of bail which is at the heart of the Bill.
The formula which the Government now invite your Lordships to consider is that the court should be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for believing that the defendant, if released on bail, would misconduct himself in one of the ways later specified. The reason why we now suggest this new form of words is that it is less subjective than the alternatives. The words "substantial grounds for believing", while not weakening the presumption in favour of bail, imply a setting out of specific grounds to be weighed and a dispassionate weighing of them in the light of the later paragraph of the Schedule;

525
that is, the matters to which the court is to have regard so far as they are relevant. I hope this formula will meet with general approval and will be acceptable to noble Lords generally.
I should perhaps conclude by saying that if this formula does find favour it involves a consequential change in the wording of the new Part II of the Schedule, which I shall move later as an Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 31.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I think I must say a few more words about this one than I have said about the previous ones. I want to say both some friendly words about the Government, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and some rather unfriendly words. As the noble Lord knows, I have given a private under-taking, which I now repeat in public, that I will recommend to my noble friends to accept this formula as certainly an improvement on what was done in another place. This Bill has never been fought on Party lines at any stage, and I have not done so. This makes it all the more important that Ministers in another place should not arrogantly try to put back what is put forward in good faith after careful discussion in this House.
When I proposed the formula of "unacceptable risk" as distinct from "probability", I did so because I was frankly dismayed at the danger to the public of offences being committed by accused persons while out on bail. I do not know whether the House knows this, but the other day in the mugging case which became notorious for quite different reasons, which I will not discuss, one of the accused had committed a series of offences while out on bail for a serious offence, and they were offences of violence. The Police Commissioner, Sir Robert Mark, has, certainly in private and I think in public, repeatedly complained of the number of people on bail at the moment in the metropolis who go about committing offences of one sort or another, and in particular offences of violence.
I believed at the time I put forward this new formula, as distinct from that originally
526
favoured by the Government, that they were running a quite unwarrantable risk with the safety of the public in going as far as they had; and, of course, this risk is accentuated if, as I now understand is the case—though this is a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department rather than for the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—once again in the metropolis delays are mounting up between committal and the trial of offenders. When I took over from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, as Lord Chancellor, I made it absolutely my first priority to reduce those delays, both in the interests of the defendants and in the interests of the public. They are mounting up again, and if you are taking risks about continuing offences while people are out on bail the mounting delays accentuate that risk.
Having said that, when I propounded this debate in Committee before the Bill left for another place, I had support from all round the House. I had support from the noble and learned Lord on the Cross-Benches, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest; I think I had welcome support from the Liberal Benches, from the noble Lord, Lord Foot; I think even the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, gave me a rather wintry kind of approval. I quoted on Second Reading, and again in Committee, a letter I had had from a very eminent person, whom I did not choose more particularly to designate, but whose identity was perfectly well known to the Government. At any rate, I expected that this would be taken seriously. What in fact happened in another place was that the Minister of State, with complete arrogance, put back the original formula which had met with such disapproval in this House.
I really must say this to the Government, and I am sorry that I have to say it to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, because he has been so decent with us through out; but as he is the only person present, I say it nevertheless, harshly and firmly. This House is a revising Chamber, and, particularly in matters which do not involve Party controversy, it simply is not good enough for the Jacks in office in another place arrogantly to put back words we have deliberately changed in the course of our quite prolonged discussion. I do not hesitate to say to the noble

527
Lord, and I hope he will convey it to his colleagues in another place, that I would not have hesitated to insist on our original formula if nothing whatever had been done about it; and if the Government had lost their Bill as a result of their complete disregard of debate in Parliament by informed opinion they would have lost it entirely because of their own obduracy and folly. I hope that this will be conveyed to the Minister of State in another place, that he simply cannot ride roughshod over informed opinion in this House, and that the only sanction we have in such circumstances is to make them lose their Bill, and I would not have hesitated to do it.
As a matter of fact, thanks to the good offices of, among others, the Lord Chancellor, but I have no doubt of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, too, consider-able efforts were made, when I made my position plain, to improve the formula. I do not think that the formula now proposed is as good as that which I originally advanced, but, as the House knows, I never preen myself on, I have no amour propre or false pride in, the actual words in any draftsmanship I indulge in. I am quite sure that the Government, owing to the good offices of the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and I expect of the Secretary of State himself, have conscientiously applied themselves to the feeling we had, that this was not treating this House with proper respect or treating informed opinion with proper respect. Therefore, I shall gladly perform my undertaking, which is to support this Amendment, and simply signalise the fact that it is far better to settle the case if you can than to fight it to the end.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, may I support the formula contained in the new Amendment. I have always felt that in the overwhelming majority of cases in which there is today an application for bail, that application will be decided in precisely the same way before the passing of this Act as after it. In the last few years there has been a very remarkable change, I think, in all the courts, which now approach the whole question of bail in a far more realistic and generous way than has been done in the past. This has been due largely to stringent observations on the subject from
528
successive Lord Chancellors and Home Secretaries. However, there remain a small minority of cases in which it may be that the court will wish to refer to the precise terms of the criteria laid down in the Bill. In regard to that small number of cases I believe the new formula is an improvement upon those which have preceded it. The original Government formula that the defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that it is probable that the defendant would misconduct himself would, if strictly interpreted, make it almost impossible for a court to remand almost anybody in custody.
The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, which was ingenious and extremely clear, perhaps on reflection leant just a little too far in the other direction, and might have resulted in some defendants being remanded in custody who could safely and properly be given bail. It was therefore helpful that a compromise might be reached. I also do not regard as ideal the words in the present proposal. I am bound to say particularly that I am not entirely happy about the use of the word "satisfied" which, in terms of the criminal courts, so often involves a degree of certainty which is sometimes philosophically quite un-obtainable. I regard the present formula as a great improvement on the previous one, and I hope it will be discovered in practice that in that small number of cases it has struck the right balance.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: I would certainly accept that the noble and learned Lord and, indeed all others who have contributed to the debate on this particular issue and the other issues raised in the Bill, have not regarded this as in any way a Party issue, as manifestly it is not, and have discussed the proposals in the Bill on that basis. I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord said about my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is sorry he cannot be with us this evening but he has been detained at a Ministerial meeting.
If the noble and learned Lord would forgive me for saying so, I think he was rather harsh on my honourable friend the Joint Minister of State. It is possible to have two views of this matter without being actuated by ignoble motives, and

529
it was true that the Government at that time did not take the view that the noble and learned Lord's Amendment was an improvement. Nevertheless, we hunted around for the compromise which is now before us this evening, and I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, think it improves the Bill. Certainly I do.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16A as an Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 16.
[No. 16A.]
Leave out ("it is probable") and insert ("there are substantial grounds for believing").—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Amherst of Hackney): My Lords, the Question is, That the House doth now agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16, as amended by Lords Amendment No. 16A?

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.17 to 20.]
Schedule 1, page 15, line 12, leave out accused 'and insert defendant'
Schedule 1, page 15, line 13, leave out 'accused should remain' and insert 'defendant should be kept'
Schedule 1, page 15, line 15, leave out 'accused' and insert 'defendant'
Schedule 1, page 15, line 18, leave out 'accused' and insert 'defendant'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.17 to 20 en bloc. We have already dealt with these Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 21.]
Schedule 1, page 15, line 20, after 'this' insert 'Part of this'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. This is a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 22.]
Schedule 1, page 15, line 22, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
'5. The defendant need not be granted bail if, having been released on bail in or in connection with the proceedings for the offence, he has been arrested in pursuance of section 7 of this Act.
Exceptions applicable only to defendant whose case is adjourned for inquiries or a report
(5A) Where his case is adjourned for inquiries or a report, the defendant need no: be granted bail if it appears to the court that it would be impracticable to complete the inquiries or make the report without keeping the defendant in custody.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 22.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
7.37 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT rose to moved, as an Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 22:
[No. 22A.]
At end insert ("and it shall not be regarded as impracticable unless at a hearing at least 8 days after conviction a probation officer or other court officer has testified that it has been impossible to make arrangements for the report to be made on bail within the next two calendar months.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wonder whether I could take a few moments. I do not want to delay the House unnecessarily at all, but I should like to explain and remind ourselves how we have reached this present situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said earlier on, it is correct that at the Third Reading of this Bill in this House he gave undertakings in regard to two matters that the noble and learned Lord, Lord

531
Gardiner, and I had raised during the course of the passage of the Bill through the House. The noble Lord gave under-takings that he would move Amendments, or Amendments would be moved in the House of Commons, to try to meet the arguments that we put forward.
The two matters which the noble Lord said he would look at were, first of all, this business of extending the presumption of bail in favour of convicted people whose case is being adjourned for a report on inquiry, and the second was the question of whether limitations could be put on the powers of the courts to remand people in custody when a person was accused, or convicted, of a non-imprisonable offence.
It is only right to acknowledge that the noble Lord has made good both those undertakings, and indeed has gone further than that, because in the Third Reading debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I, less vociferously perhaps, expressed anxiety and concern about the Government's intentions as to the way in which they were going to extend the presumption of bail to convicted persons. The noble Lord had indicated to us then what the Government had in mind. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and I, expressed considerable anxiety about two of the exceptions which the Government had in mind as qualifying this new extended right. It appears from my reading of the Bill as it now stands, and as it has been amended in the other place, that the noble Lord has paid heed to the anxieties which we expressed on that occasion and has gone a long way towards meeting the alarms which we felt.
The first of the exceptions which the Government had in mind to bring in provided that a court need not give bail to a convicted person whose case was being adjourned for a medical report if they considered that that person might be mentally disordered and in need of inpatient hospital treatment. We saw manifest objections to that. It seemed almost incredible that if a court were thinking that a person was mentally disordered and in need of inpatient treatment they should pack him off into a prison. I am glad to see that that exception which the Government had in mind at that time has disappeared.
Secondly, the Government have redrafted the other qualification or exception which they had in mind to which we saw objection. The original words about which the Government were talking when the Bill was in this House were that the court need not grant bail if the court had it in mind to pass a custodial sentence subject to the contents of the report which it had called for.
I will not weary the House with the criticisms that the noble and learned Lord and myself made of that provision when it was in the House; but clearly the Government have had further thoughts about it and the way in which that exception now appears in the Bill reads:
"Where his case is adjourned for inquiries or a report, the defendant need not be granted bail if the court has decided to impose a sentence of imprisonment unless it is induced not to do so by the matters disclosed by the inquiries or contained in the report."
If I understand that aright, it is an improvement, although it does not go all they way to meeting our objections, because it makes it essential, before the court can say "No, no bail", positively to determine that they will send him to prison unless the report induces them to do otherwise. I think that is an advance and I will not say more about it except that it will be interesting to see how it works out in practice. If it does not work and if it goes wrong, I hope that, in the course of time, the Government, whatever Government may be in power, will have a look at the matter again.
I come specifically to my Amendment because at Schedule 1(8) we now have a new exception, something that has not been canvassed in the House before. The Government are proposing:
"Where his case is adjourned for inquiries or a report, the defendant need not be granted bail if it appears to the court that it would be im-practicable to complete the inquiries or make the report without keeping the defendant in custody."
Prima facie that is not an unreasonable proposition; it would be a little idiotic not if we were to compel a court to grant bail in a case where the granting of the bail would prevent the court from getting the report it wants. That would be rather stupid and therefore on the face of it this is a sensible provision. However, I wish to draw attention to what I believe to be a lurking danger in the Bill and a danger of considerable importance and magnitude.

533
If we say to a court that it is to consider whether it is impracticable for a report to be produced on the person concerned if he is not in custody, that presupposes that all courts at all times are familiar with and informed about the in-patient hospital facilities for examination and report. That is not only fanciful but manifestly untrue.
Any practising lawyer, and there are, if not at the moment, many in this House—certainly there are magistrates and per-sons who have sat as crown court judges and we have two former Lord Chancellors present—knows that in the ordinary way magistrates courts and indeed crown courts have only the haziest notion of what hospital facilities there are available for preparing reports without the person being put into custody. Indeed, why should a bench of magistrates be expected to know precisely what facilities are available in their neighbourhood in order to get a report on a particular defendant? Even if we have the most assiduous and careful magistrates, as we often have, who try to inform themselves of the general medical facilities available for getting reports of this kind, they cannot know whether the facilities are available for giving them a report on the particular defendant who is in front of them because his problem may be something which is not entirely in the ordinary run.
It is in my view an all too common belief on the part of many of the courts in this country that one can get a better report if one puts the person under custodial observation. I am not an authority on this and I will not go so far as to say that I believe that to be a delusion, but I remind the House of what the Working Party said about this matter. It said that it was a very difficult matter—this question of trying to decide on the desirability and usefulness of putting a person in custody in order to get a medical report—and it drew attention to the fact that medical opinion in this country is very sharply divided. It went on in paragraph 152 of its report:
"There seems to be general agreement, however, that some of those persons at present remanded in custody for medical reports could equally well be remanded on bail for this purpose if they are, too, suitable on other grounds. A difficulty which the magistrates face is in having to decide without medical assistance which of such cases are suitable for bail and which are not. It seems to us that it would he of assistance to the magistrates if they had medical advice available to them
534
for this purpose. It might be possible in difficult cases to remand the defendant in custody for a short period, of perhaps two or three days, to enable the prison medical officer to say whether the case was suitable for a report on bail."
I emphasise the next sentence:
"Usually in borderline cases, however, we doubt whether much harm would be done by giving the defendant the benefit of the doubt and remanding him on bail, given the deleterious effect of custody."
I remind the Houset of that quotation because it clearly points to the fact that it is all too easy for a mistake to be made by magistrates and for them to pack off to prison somebody who on psychiatric grounds should never go near a prison. My Amendment follows on the thinking of that paragraph and suggests a solution which I think is a little less difficult than the proposal made by the Working Party; that one might get a man remanded for two or three days. I think that would he falling between two stools and we should have the worst of two worlds; the chap would go to prison and it might be found at the end of three days that it was wholly wrong for him to have gone there. I have—or those advising and helping me have—sought to devise a formula which will enable this practical difficulty to be overcome.
My Amendment would add words to paragraph 8 of the Schedule and I will read them together, when the House will immediately see what my Amendment seeks to do. It would read like this:
"Where his case is adjourned for inquiries or a report, the defendant need not be granted bail if it appears to the court that it 'would be impracticable to complete the inquiries or make the report without keeping the defendent in custody."
And here is my Amendment—
"and it shall not be regarded as impracticable unless at a hearing at least 8 days after conviction a probation officer or other court officer has testified that it has been impossible to make arrangements for the report to be made on bail within the next two calendar months."
May I briefly explain how I think that would operate in practice? The court has convicted someone, and they have come to the conclusion that they want a social inquiry report or a medical health report and they decide to adjourn the case for that report or those inquiries to be made, what is the question they then have to ask? The first question is: is this chap eligible or ineligible for bail under the general provisions of Schedule 1? They also have to ask: is he liable to

535
abscond? Is he liable to commit other offences? Is it necessary to put him in custody for his own safety and protection? If the answer to any of those questions is Yes, then they are perfectly justified in remanding him in custody and nobody complains about that. But if they come to the conclusion that the answer to all those questions is, No and, therefore, he is a perfectly good "bail risk", if I may put it like that, they must say to themselves, "Now we must adjourn the case, let him out on bail and get a probation officer or other court officer to let us have a report after the lapse of eight days as to whether it is practicable for him to be examined, and the report to be obtained while he is at large".
I suggest that this is not only a practicable thing to do, but that it evades the terrible risk that magistrates, and indeed Crown Courts, without that advice from a probation officer or other court officer cannot decide for themselves whether or not it is practicable to obtain the report, because very often they have not got the necessary information to do it. The great temptation is that the magistrate will take the easy way out and say, "We do not know whether it is practicable, but we had better decide that it is impracticable and put him in custody".
I do not know whether I am pressing this Amendment. I have not seen any very encouraging signs from noble Lords. I say that because, in the other place, when an Amendment not wholly dissimilar from mine was moved, the Government, through Dr. Summerskill, expressed themselves sympathetic to the objectives of the Amendment, but took the view—rather surprisingly to my mind—that this could he dealt with by way of a Home Office circular. I gravely doubt whether that meets the case. I suppose everybody knows how easy it is for Home Office circulars to be overlooked or pigeonholed and forgotten. On the other hand, if you write the thing into the Statute it is inevitably brought to the attention of magistrates whenever they have to deal with a case of this kind.
I suggest that it is not reasonable to expect that every magistrates' clerk, however assiduous he may be in the performance of his duties, has at his finger tips all the Home Office circulars that
536
have been issued from time to time. If the Government insist upon the circular, it is inescapable that serious wrongs will be done. I hope it is not extravagant for me to remind the House that this Bill is about basic human liberties and human rights. If you are going to try to deal with this matter by way of a circular, there will inevitably be those occasions when by oversight or mistake, the magistrates' attention is not drawn to what Parliament wants them to do and they will do the wrong thing. On the other hand, if you take the simple course of writing into the Bill the five lines of my Amendment, then you will ensure that on every occasion when this situation arises it is brought to the attention of the court. This is a matter of serious basic human rights and liberties. I do not know how it comes about that those basic rights should in the end depend on whether a circular has been brought to the attention of the court. I suggest that that is un-satisfactory and that the satisfactory way of dealing with this matter is the simple course of writing it into the Bill.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
At end insert ("and it shall not he regarded as impracticable unless at a hearing at least 8 days after conviction a probation officer or other court officer has testified that it has been impossible to make arrangements for the report to be made on bail within the next two calendar months.")—[Lord Foot.]
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, because he very lucidly explained to us his objectives in moving the Amendment. I am afraid that perhaps I am rather old-fashioned concerning the last point he mentioned, regarding Home Office circulars. I prefer things to be a matter of law rather than by way of a Departmental circular. The Minister said that she entirely agreed with the objective and that the only difference seemed to be whether it should be in the Bill or should be dealt with by Home Office circular. The last time I made inquiries it seemed to me the practice in magistrates' courts—of which undoubtedly the noble Lord, Lord Foot, knows a great deal more than almost anybody in the House—varies very much. I believe there are justices' clerks who give copies of such circulars to the justices. Others may read out at a meeting the parts about which they think the justices

537
ought to know, there are some who do not read it out but give their own interpretation of what the circular amounts to, and I am afraid on occasions there are justices' clerks whose circulars simply remain in a drawer in a desk. In view of the small difference there appears to be, I very much hope that the House, including my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, will accept this Amendment.
7.58 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, certainly I can start by saying that the Government sympathise with the motives behind this Amendment in so far as it is relates to the aim of reducing the number of defendants remanded in custody while reports are prepared. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, on an earlier Amendment said that there was something of an obsession in the Home Office about dealing with the size of the prison population—I am sure he said that in a spirit of fun. It is indeed true that there is such an obsession, and it is right that it should be so. We have a prison population of nearly 42,000. We have, quite properly, stringent controls on the level of public expenditure. There is no way, even if it were desirable, of substantially increasing the number of places in our prisons, and when one sees the circumstances in which people are maintained in prison today the situation is profoundly unsatisfactory.
However, having said that, our anxiety about this Amendment is as follows: Our difficulty is that we believe that the practical effect would be to delay to some extent the final disposal of the case without actually reducing the number of remands in custody for reports. A similar provision about impracticability was included in Section 18 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967. It is retained in this Bill because, as has been pointed out by magistrates' associations, it unfortunately remains true that in some parts of the country medical facilities outside the prisons are not available—or at any rate are not adequate to enable a medical report to be prepared within a reasonable time.
The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, inserts a specific test which would be applied in each case, but in fact the difficulty about obtaining reports relates not to the particular defendant, as I believe
538
he suggested, but more often to the locality; and it would thus be known to the court if medical facilities locally were not adequate—as in many areas they are not—to deal with this sort of problem. If this were a specific procedural requirement, it would have a number of clearly undesirable consequences. First, it would be known—I do not think that there is a great deal of mystery about it—in a particular locality, that it was impracticable to obtain the reports on bail within a reasonable period. Yet in such a situation the probation officer or the court officer would still be obliged to make detailed inquiries on every occasion. He would in fact be under a statutory obligation so to do even if he knew that there were no facilities available. It would, in fact, be something of a charade. But, if he did not make inquiries and this was brought out by counsel for the accused, this could raise very serious issues. All I am saying to emphasise this point is that, at a time when the Probation Service and the court service are operating under extreme pressure, I do not believe that it is appropriate to write this scheme into the Statute Book.
The Government—and I, as Minister at the Home Office with responsibility for the Probation Service—have made it quite clear that, at a time when where there is very substantial pressure on resources, we shall not impose new statutory burdens on the Probation Service. This would be a quite significant burden upon that Service or, if it did not fall upon the probation officer, on the court officer. The same constraints on public expenditure apply in that case as they do in the Probation Service. A further objection is that, in the cases to which the Amendment would apply, at least one extra court appearance would be necessary—not less than eight days after conviction—and thereafter, if bail were granted, there could be a further delay of up to eight weeks, resulting in a delay between conviction and sentence of nine weeks in all in addition to the time taken to reach conviction stage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has pointed out, an Amendment on similar lines was moved during the debate in another place. It was withdrawn following an undertaking by my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office that the courts would be recommended by circular to seek all available

539
information—in particular any information which the Probation Service could supply on whether there was a practicable alternative to a custodial remand.
I wholly understand the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner that he would prefer to act by Statute rather than by circular, but, as I have endeavoured to make clear, there are, in our view, real difficulties about this Amendment though there is no difference between the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and ourselves as far as our aim in this matter is concerned. Dealing with his closing point on the question of the Home Office circular, I hope that what I shall have to say to some extent meets the point made by my noble and learned friend. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, said that Home Office circulars could be overlooked and my noble and learned friend implied the same. Clearly, in certain cases, this may be true; nevertheless, it is desirable to point out what happened in 1975. Then, in the final quarter of the year, following the issue of the circular on bail procedures in October 1975, receptions of untried remand prisoners (which, during the first three quarters of 1975 were higher by 10 ·2 per cent., 7·6 per cent. and 8·6 per cent. respectively compared to the corresponding three quarters of 1974) fell by 9·7 per cent., and that was following three quarters in which substantial rises had taken place. I do not feel that I can totally dispose of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that a circular may be overlooked, but I believe that this example gives a fairly significant amount of evidence to show that Home Office circulars have a considerable effect so far as magistrates are concerned. I believe that this is the way to deal with the matter.
I have attempted to point out that though I recognise the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in moving the Amendment, I do not believe that his aim would be met by it and I think that it would impose a further statutory burden on the Probation Service and the court service. As I have indicated, I do not feel that it is appropriate to put new burdens on these services at a time when there is extremely harsh restraint on public expenditure.
Lord FOOT: I shall not weary the House with more than a few observations. I have listened with every care to the noble Lord's argument and I am still mystified by the fact that he says that the Government are going to deal with this by way of circular. What will the circular say? Will it say that it is desirable when a court is presented with a situation of this kind for it to seek the advice of probation officers or other court officers as to the practicability of getting a medical report without sending the man to prison? If so, in what way does that differ from imposing an obligation to do it by way of my Amendment and under the Statute? If the circular is merely to be a piece of advice without any kind of sanction to back it up, and if the magistrates can disregard it should they wish, it will really not achieve any particular purpose.
Earlier in the year when the Bill was being discussed, I drew attention to the astonishing figures found by the Working Party when they examined the situation in 1972. They found that in that year 23,885 people were received into custody after conviction and before sentence. That was the dimension of the number of people who are sent to prison and of that number the even more remarkable figure is that in the same year—1972–12,437 people were remanded in custody by all courts specifically for mental observation or state of health reports. We have no figures as to the numbers of those people who were not sent to prison afterwards.
That is the dimension of the problem, and I revert to what I said at the conclusion of my earlier remarks. I am afraid that if the Government are to try to deal with this by circular, it will be absolutely inescapable that some mentally disturbed people—people whom Parliament would never want to see sent to prison at all—will be sent to prison for the purpose of a medical report, simply because the magistrates will not have had it brought to their attention that they ought to get somebody to investigate for them whether facilities for an extra mural examination are available. That will happen. It will mean that next year hundreds or thousands of people who are mental patients and who may be overwhelmingly damaged by a taste of imprisonment will certainly be sent into prison because the magistrates will not

541
be under the duty of investigating through the probation officer whether extra custodial facilities are available. I am afraid that that is an inescapable conclusion, and I should not like to be responsible for carrying through an Act without including the safeguard which I have attempted to indicate. I do not propose to try to move this to a Division. Therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.23–30]
Schedule 1, page 15, line 25, leave out 'Where the accused' and insert 'Subject to sub-paragraph (3) below, where the defendant'
Schedule 1, page 15, line 29, leave out 'Schedule' and insert 'Part of this Schedule or, in the case of a condition under subsection (6)(d) of that section, that it is necessary to impose it to enable inquiries or a report to be made into the defendant's physical or mental condition'
Schedule 1, page 15, line 32, at end insert—
'(3) The restriction imposed by sub-paragraph (1) above shall not operate to override the direction in section 26(3) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 to a magistrates' court to impose conditions of bail under section 3(6)(d) of this Act of the description specified in the said section 26(3) in the circumstances so specified'
Schedule 1, page 15, leave out lines 33 to 36 and insert—
'Decisions under paragraph 1
7. In taking the decisions required by paragraph 1 of this Part of this Schedule, the'
Schedule 1, page 15, line 40, leave out 'accused' and insert 'defendant'
Schedule 1, Page 16, line 2, leave out 'accused' and insert 'defendant'
Schedule 1, Page 16, line 3, leave out 'accused's' and insert 'defendant's'
Schedule 1, Page 16, line 5, after '(d)' insert except in the case of defendant whose case is adjourned for enquiries or a report'
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, Amendments Nos.23 to 30 en bloc, my note says.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if I may say so the noble and learned Lord's note is wholly accurate. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.23 to 30 en bloc.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 31.]
Page 16, leave out lines 8 to 16 and insert—

'PART II DEFENDANTS ACCUSED OR CONVICTED OF NON-IMPRISONABLE OFFENCES
Defendants to whom Part II applies
1. Where the offence or every offence of which the defendant is accused or convicted in the proceedings is one which is not punishable with imprisonment the following provisions of this Part of this Schedule apply.
Exceptions to right to bail
2. The defendant need not be granted bail if—

(a) it appears to the court that, having been previously granted bail in criminal proceedings, he has failed to surrender to custody in accordance with his obligations under the grant of bail; and

(b) the court is satisfied that, in view of that failure, it is probable that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would fail to surrender to custody.

3. The defendant need not be granted bail if the court is satisfied that the defendant should be kept in custody for his own protection or, if he is a child or young person, for his own welfare.
4. The defendant need not be granted bail if he is in custody in pursuance of the sentence of a court or of any authority acting under any of the Services Acts.
5. The defendant need not be granted bail if, having been released on bail in or in connection with the proceedings for the offence, he has been arrested in pursuance of section 7 of this Act.

PART III INTERPRETATION
1. For the purposes of this Schedule We question whether an offence is one which is punishable with imprisonment shall be determined without regard to any enactment prohibiting or restricting the imprisonment of young offenders or first offenders.
2. References in this Schedule to previous grants of bail in criminal proceedings include references to bail granted before the coming into force of this Act.
3. References in this Schedule to a defendant's being kept in custody or being in custody include (where the defendant is a child or young person) references to his being kept or being in the care of a local authority in pursuance of a warrant of commitment under section 23(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969.
4. In this Schedule—
"court", in the expression "sentence of court" includes a service court as defined in section 12(1) of the Visiting Forces Act 1952 and "sentence", in that expression, shall be construed in accordance with that definition;
"default", in relation to the defendant, means the default for which Le is to be dealt with under secton 6 or section 16 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973;
"the Services Acts" means the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31. I should like to speak to this fairly briefly because we have covered the ground of this issue in the debates on earlier Amendments. The new Part II of Schedule 1 applies to defendants who are accused or convicted of an offence which is not punishable with imprisonment. This new Part II has been introduced in accordance with the undertakings to which I have already referred. The new Part III contains interpretative provisions applying to both the new Part I and the new Part II. I beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not think that we need take any time over this. But just look at all the extra words we are adding to the Statute Book.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move the following Amendment, Amendment No. 31A, as an Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 31. It is consequential on Amendment No. 31.
Amendment to Amendment moved—
[No. 31A.]
In paragraph 2 (Exceptions to right to bail) leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insertt—
("(b) the court believes, in view of that failure, that the defendant, if released on bail (whether subject to conditions or not) would fail to surrender to custody.")
On Question, Whether the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 31 as amended?

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 32.]
Schedule 2, page 17, line 3, at end insert—
'Interpretation Act 1889
4A. In section 27 of the Interpretation Act 1889 (meaning of "committed for trial") for the words "to custody" wherever occurring there shall be substituted the words "in custody or on bail" and the words from "and shall include" to the end shall be omitted.'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their
544
Amendment No. 32. This is a consequential Amendment to the Interpretation Act 1889 which is necessitated by the new language adopted in the Bill in consequence of the abolition of personal recognisances.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 33.]
Schedule 2, page 18, line 38, leave out 'at' and insert 'before'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 33. This has already been dealt with.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 34.]
Schedule 2, page 18, line 44, after '(5)' insert 'or (6)'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 34. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Amendment No. 43. These minor Amendments are consequential upon the addition to Clause 8 of the Bill at Report stage in this House of subsection (6), which enables a surety to enter into his recognisance in Scotland before the Scottish police where the court is satisfied that he is a suitable person to act as surety.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 35.]
Schedule 2, page 19, line 4, leave out 'at' and insert 'before'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35. We have already dealt with this.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 36.]
Schedule 2, page 19, line 7, leave out paragraph 16 and insert—
'16. In section 26 of the Act of 1952 (remand for medical examination), for subsection (3) there shall be substituted the following—
"(3) Where on an adjournment under subsection (1) above the accused is remanded on bail, the court shall impose conditions under paragraph (d) of section 3(6) of the Bail Act 1976 and the requirements imposed as conditions under that paragraph shall be or shall include requirements that the accused—

(a) undergo medical examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner or, where the enquiry is into his mental condition and the court so directs, two such practitioners; and

(b) for that purpose attend such an institution or place, or on such practitioner as the court directs and, where the enquiry is into his mental condition, comply with any other directions which may be given to him for that purpose by any person specified by the court or by a person of any class so specified".'

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 36. Paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 makes the Amendments which are necessary, in consequence of the abolition of personal recognisances, to subsection (3) of Section 26 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos.37–40.]
Schedule 2, page 19, line 41, leave out first 'at' and insert 'before'
Schedule 2, Page 20, line 46, leave out first 'at' and insert 'before'
Schedule 2, Page 22, line 8, leave out first 'at' and insert 'before'
Schedule 2, Page 22, line 18, leave out 'at' and insert 'before'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos.37 to 40 en bloc. These, too, have already been dealt with.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 41.]
Schedule 2, page 23, line 7, leave out 'or (b)'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 41. This Amendment corrects a minor drafting error.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 42.]
Schedule 3, page 23, line 11, leave cut 'at' and insert 'before'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 42. We have dealt with this.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 43.]
Schedule 2, page 23, line 45, after '(5)' insert 'or (6)'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 43. This has been dealt with.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 44.]
Schedule 3, page 27, line 11, at end insert—

'52 & 53 Vict. c. 63.

The Interpretation Act 1889.

In section 27, the words from "and shall include, to the end'.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 44. This Amendment adds to the repeal schedule (Schedule 3) a small

547
consequential repeal already provided for in substance by the Amendment to Section 27 of the Interpretation Act 1889, contained in the new paragraph 4A of Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 45.]
Schedule 3, page 27, line 17, column 3, at end insert 'In section 26, sub-section (4)'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 45. This Amendment to Schedule 3 repeals subsection (4) of Section 26 of the 1952 Act.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 46.]
In the Title, line 6, leave out 'remanded' and insert 'kept'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. This is a drafting Amendment.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, now that the noble and learned Lord is here, I should like to repeat the thanks to him that I expressed in his absence for his good offices in helping us to settle the rather troublesome matter which was dealt with in Amendment No. 16A.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that intimation. He played a great part in our arriving at a solution, which I was glad to hear was acceptable to the Committee as a whole.
Bill returned to the Commons.

RENT (AGRICULTURE) BILL
8.20 p.m.
House again in Committee.
On Question, Whether Schedule 5, as amended, shall be the Fifth Schedule to the Bill?
Baroness YOUNG: I should like to raise one general point. We had a rather amusing debate just before we left for dinner on the meaning of one part of Schedule 5, but I think that illustrated the point that when you legislate to provide statutory tenancies and the law has to intervene in freely negotiated agreements it becomes extraordinarily complicated. I know that the Government have issued a leaflet, which I have read, setting out the kind of questions which people will want to ask about this legislation; but, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers has indicated, the Rent Act parts of this Bill are something quite new to the agricultural world, and certainly quite new to the workers in the houses. I therefore hope very much that the Government will issue a leaflet explaining them in simple terms. At the moment, the leaflet they have issued, in answer to Question 27, which is:
"So the Bill makes no provision for rents?"
says:
"On the contrary, there are many detailed provisions about rents, but they are especially concerned with the situation which would arise if and when you became a statutory tenant".
As this is a situation which could quite easily arise, I think it calls for a proper explanation.
Baroness BIRK: I agree with the noble Baroness. I think she has raised this point on several other Bills, and I have been in total agreement with her about it. I think that to communicate what you are going to do and what you are doing is of the utmost importance. I can therefore assure the noble Baroness that we will be sending out guidelines—if you like, a sort of layman's guide to the Rent Agriculture Act. Where any matter has been covered in other explanatory leaflets it will not necessarily be repeated, but I think these guidelines will cover all the points with which the noble Baroness is concerned. Directly I know that what we are covering and how we are dealing with it has been worked out, I will write to her about it.
Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Adjustment for differences in lengths of rental periods]:
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 54A:
Page 17, line 34, at end insert ("and a day as consisting of twenty-four hours").
The noble Earl said: This modest little Amendment seeks to help to clarify some issues in case they need clarifying. The Bill as it stands points out in a remarkable way that a year consists of 12 months and a week consists of one fifty-second of a year. I thought it might be helpful, therefore, to make it absolutely clear that a day consists of 24 hours. I could not quite see why it was so necessary to put these obvious clarifications in. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I thought there might be some objection to this Amendment, because we have summer time and then go back to winter time overnight, and it could be argued that one day lasted 25 hours and another day lasted 23 hours. I think this would be a difficult thing to do; but that is rather by the way. I ought to remind the noble Earl of the Sixth Schedule to the Rent Restriction Regulations 1957, which was signed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who was then Minister of Housing and Local Government. What was then said was:
"The amount of rates for any rental period is ascertained by dividing the rates for the whole rating period in which the rent for that rental period is payable by the number which is obtained by dividing the number of days in the rating period by the number of days in the rental period".
Earl FERRERS: Would the noble Baroness mind going a little more slowly?
Baroness BIRK: I have not got to the figures yet. That is a sort of preamble, with which the noble Earl will not be concerned; it is only the figures.
"For example, if the rating period is a year, and rent is payable weekly, the yearly amount of the rates will be divided by 52 1/7th, or 52 2/7ths if the rating period includes the extra day of a leap year".
It was in order to avoid this, I think, ultra-complexity that we put these words in the Bill. If this had been done at that time, in 1957, then the complexity which
550
resulted from what I have read could have been avoided. So although I agree with the noble Earl that it does look as though it should have a last line to it—and it is quite an amusing one that he is suggesting—there is some sense behind spelling things out and trying to make what was set down in 1957 rather less complex.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation, and I am glad to know that, even though this Bill is extremely complex, it is apparently less complex than others have been. I put this Amendment down really only to try to find out exactly why the Government had inserted the Amendment to say what a week consists of and what a month consists of. It seemed to me a fairly suitable way to put this down, considering the fact that possibly some noble Lords might have thought, during the last few weeks, that the days consisted of rather more than 24 hours. However, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her explanation, and I happily withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Regulations]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDYS: At this point I should have liked to be able to say, "Drafting—I beg to move", but it is a little more than that, because, unfortunately, there is a point of substance here although it is also a question of drafting. The object in suggesting the omission of this clause is to ask the Government why this particular pair of definitions is isolated from other definitions, and could it not, with some profit, clarity and perhaps even tidiness, be added to Clause 37, where will be found a number of other definitions of this nature.
Baroness BIRK: I can see why the noble Lord has raised this matter and, in a way, I can sec the logic of it, but the reason why these definitions are at present in Clause 20 is simply that the two expressions to which he refers are used only in Part II of the Bill. Therefore, it is better to have the definitions in Part II, because they do not

551
apply anywhere else in the Bill. Similarly Clause 28 contains an interpretation of certain expressions used in Part III. Clause 37 contains only definitions of expressions which are applicable through-out the Bill rather than in just one Part. We thought this was really a sensible distinction, because then the definitions in Clause 37 apply throughout the Bill, but otherwise we have put in the definitions where applicable. I think that when the noble Lord looks at it and considers it he will accept that it is really a more sensible thing to do.
Lord SANDYS: I am glad to accept the explanation given by the noble Baroness. It is a little unusual to have such a scatter of definitions throughout a Bill. How-ever, the Government have met the point to some extent by providing us with a glossary of all the definitions, of which there are a considerable number, in Schedule I.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Certain sublettings not to exclude any part of the sublessor's premises from protection]:
On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?
8.32 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I wanted to ask a question about this because I appreciate the legislation is taken from the 1968 Rent Act. We are, I think, entering into new territory here because these houses and the subtenants in them are to become statutory tenants for the first time. I understood during the passage of the 1974 Rent Act that the great distinction being drawn for the first time was between shared and separate accommodation; that is to say, accommodation in which the tenant had exclusive occupation and accommodation which was shared with the landlord and in which the landlord was resident. It is true that there are very subtle differences in the 1968 Act about unfurnished accommodation, but I should have thought in this particular case that if, for example, for one reason or another one of the subtenants has security of tenure in a house when for some reason or another he is
552
no longer employed by the farmer, this could create very great difficulties.
My understanding of the present position on furnished accommodation is that the reason why there is no security of tenure when the landlord is resident is that it could create an intolerable situation in which two groups of people had to share a house and they did not get on and the resident landlord could not regain possession of part of his own house. I would hope, therefore, that the Government feel that it is right to look at this part again, because it is a new situation where it is tied accommodation and where presumably those people who have been sub-tenants are in some way connected with the farm and are therefore tied to the landlord, not simply because they are sub-tenants but because they are working for him. To give permanent security of tenure in these circumstances seems to me to be contrary to what has been done in the 1974 Act. I should have thought it could have the most unfortunate consequences for everybody. I should like to know whether the Government have considered this point and, if not, whether they would consider it.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Baroness in her explanation has really followed up what I think she was concerned with on the second day of the Committee stage. She said then (column 1627):
"As I see it, the intention of the Bill is to draw more tightly than either the 1968 or 1974 Rent Acts the protection given to agricultural workers".
She then refers to Clause 3 paving the way for Clauses 24 and 25. I admit that although this is quite a short clause, it is incredibly complicated. I think I must first emphasise that the clause is dealing with a very particular type of situation. This is where the mere fact that the tenant shares part of his premises with a subtenant, or has sublet part of the premises with rental payments for board or attendance, might otherwise be held to deprive the tenant of protection under the Bill. The clause is not intended to affect the provisions of the Bill which enable a landlord to claim possession of the premises where there has been a subletting without the landlord's consent.
Perhaps I may briefly outline the history behind this difficult clause. It is modelled on Section 103 of the 1968 Rent Act,

553
which was a consolidating measure, as amended by the 1974 Rent Act. The origin of the provision is Section 9 of the Landlord and Tenant (Rent Control) Act, 1949. That section was designed particularly to overturn an earlier court decision where a tenant of a bungalow who lawfully sublet a furnished bed-sitting room with the use of the kitchen herself lost the protection of the Rent Acts. In that case possession was ordered in respect of the entire premises. In a later Court of Appeal case, it was stated that the primary object of the provision was to protect the tenant, together with his subtenant, against the tenant's land-lord where there had been sublettings which, considered by themselves, would not have been protected.
'This principle of protection is quite fair in the Rent Act context and it does not extend anything. It is within that context. It seems reasonable to extend it to this Bill. By inserting this clause we have removed any doubt which might otherwise exist. In view of the case law experience over the previous Acts, we feel it better to spell it out in this clause. But it does not extend this beyond the boundaries of the other Rent Acts.
Baroness YOUNG: The noble Baroness has clarified the position but I am not quite sure that that makes it better. I think there is a distinction here. Perhaps I did not make myself clear. We are not simply dealing with the landlord and tenant situation on which presumably the case she quoted was based. We are dealing with a situation not only of landlord and tenant but of employer and employee, in which the tenant and employee shares part of the accommodation with the landlord and employer. It could be the kitchen or the sitting room. They have some exclusive use of rooms but they share accommodation. I should have thought that to leave this as it is could be the recipe for most terrible domestic disharmony, and I am not sure that anybody would benefit from it.
I have not a new clause drafted. I am merely saying to the Government that I should have thought that in the interests of a great many people they ought to think about this. I believe it to be a new situation. We are only now talking about a subtenant actually sharing accommodation. When you try to visualise what could happen when the farm worker
554
gives up his job, works in a local factory and has security of tenure in a house sharing the kitchen or living room and has that security until, as I understand it, the farmer could go to the special advisory committee and get a special dispensation that he had to have an argicultural worker in those rooms again, it could be an intolerable burden on a number of people. I believe that this is something that the Government should think about and I would ask them to do so.
Baroness BIRK: I still think that this point is covered. Although it contains a number of provisions which are concerned with subletting, Clause 10 provides protection for subtenants in certain circum-stances where the head tenancy comes to an end, but only where the subletting was lawful. If a protected occupier sublets any part without the consent of the land-lord, he will be liable to an action for possession under Clause 7 and Case VIII in Schedule 3. Where we have got at odds about it is that where the worker is in the farmer's house there is no protection anyway. This is not covered by Clause 25.
Clause 25 is designed to deal with certain situations of sublettings where the arrangements made, involving either sharing of essential living accommodation—a kitchen, or attendance, or board—would by themselves prejudicially affect the tenant's security. This is not as if it is in the farmer's own house. Section 103 of the Rent Act 1968 (on which this clause is directly modelled) gives statutory protection to tenants in such circumstances; and the Bill follows suit. It Joes not apply to somebody in the farmer's own house. There is no protection there.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: When my noble friend mentioned that conditions of this kind had never existed before, I was reminded that those of us who have reached the great ate that I have reached will remember the appalling problems caused by evacuation at the beginning of the war. Families were evacuated from the cities into the country-side and had to share kitchens and houses. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, will probably remember it very well. It caused appalling difficulties. The advantages were that people were sent away from the bombing and were not in the towns during the blitz. What happened in the end was that evacuation did not work; the mothers generally came home and the

555
children stayed on. There is no doubt about it. It leads to the most appalling complications when you find two families sharing particularly a kitchen, which is the office in the house and is used by everybody. Any Bill which went through today and could possibly put into legislation the kind of conditions which applied in the years 1940, 1941 and 1942—admittedly a long time ago—which were identical to today, except we are not running away from bombs, are handing themselves a lump of trouble. It could be to the advantage of everyone concerned if someone looked at this critically to see whether or not this condition could be avoided.
Lord SANDYS: I agree with both my noble friends. Perhaps some of the problem may be of the Government's own making. It occurs to me that it is part of the draftsmanship which is at fault. The noble Baroness gave us the provenance of this clause and took us back to a certain section of the 1949 Act. One of the difficulties some people will find—and no doubt other noble Lords will share—is that in the first sentence there is a treble negative. A double negative is bad enough, but a treble negative—two "nots" and a "no"—makes it extremely difficult of comprehension.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying this point about the farmer letting his own house. It brings the matter in line with the 1974 Act. I am not at all convinced that the point I made about two people sharing a house is not still valid. It seems to me where on a farm there were two farm workers who shared a house and accommodation where they had a community of interest, it could have worked satisfactorily. I could foresee difficulties if both become statutory tenants and one or both were leading very different lives. I can foresee great difficulties on this aspect; apart from this practical point, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has made is a relevant one as well. The Government ought to look at it.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Baroness says, "Have a look at it". I will write to her about it. I assure her it is no different from what she accepts as part of the 1968 Act. Where there are sub-lettings which are not lawful there is no protection but otherwise it works in exactly the same way.
556
Her major concern—and I agree it is not terribly clear—was that she felt it might have taken in the worker living in the farmer's own house. Now we are clear about that and I would have thought it was all right. Maybe I have not explained it very well. I am satisfied it covers the point she dealt with. I will write to the noble Baroness because that is clearer and she can read it instead of continuing this debate across the Benches.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clauses 26 to 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Applications to housing authority concerned]:
8.45 p.m.
Lord BURNHAM Lord BURNHAM moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 22, line 28, after ("made") insert ("at any time").
The noble Lord said: I should like to start by saying that my Amendment is not affected by and does not affect any of the subsequent Amendments to be pro-posed to this clause by my noble friends. I am also rather apologetic, since your Lordships have been considering this Bill for some time, that it is possible that in strictly legal terms my Amendment is not necessary at all. But its inclusion would help to make the clause a great deal clearer. Clause 29 begins:
"An application may be made by the occupier of land used for agriculture to the housing authority concerned … on the ground that … vacant possession is or will be needed of a dwelling house …"
I need not go on any further. Provided that the other provisions of Clause 29 are satisfied, there can be no doubt whatsoever that possession of the dwelling house will be required in due course because sooner or later the employee who lives there will retire. It is only a question of the meaning of the words in English. My submission is that sooner or later possession will be required It therefore may follow that the application might in any case be made by the occupier at any time.
If so, I am happy to say that there are important advantages both to the farmer and the farm employee. If the farmer can make an application when he has no intention of dismissing his employee, or the employee has no intention of leaving him, he can discover from the agricultural dwelling-houses advisory committee and the housing authority concerned whether

557
that dwelling-house is or is not necessary in the interests of efficient agriculture. When the time comes in the future that the employee retires or if, unhappily, the employee decides to leave him, he will have saved all the time that would otherwise be taken in applying to the housing authority, for the housing authority to refer to the ADHAC, for the ADHAC to consider the matter and report back to the housing authority, and for the housing authority to make their decision known. All these points could be settled years in advance. That is the advantage so far as the farmer is concerned.
So far as the farm worker is concerned the advantage is that the whole of the provision of Clause 37 comes into effect. As there is no urgency—it is generally agreed that there is no urgency because he is still working happily for his present employer—the housing authority will not have to provide a house. They will have to face the fact that at some time in the future they will have to provide a house. They will therefore put that employee on their housing list. Many local authorities will take agricultural workers on their housing lists at any time, but there are some who will not on the grounds that they are already housed and do not need to bother about them yet. If the application is made under this Bill when it becomes an Act, they will have to face up to the fact that there is a problem and accept the employee's name on the list. It would be a great relief to the employee to know that in the unhappy event that the employer cannot allow him to remain in the house when he retires, he is already very much in the mind of the housing authority concerned.
As I have said, it may not be necessary to include the words, "at any time" because they may be covered by the words, "possession will be required"; but I submit that including them makes it very much clearer that the problem can be considered years in advance of it actually arriving. I beg to move.
Lord PEART: Nobody would dispute that farmers should be encouraged to apply to authorities in advance in cases where a need for repossession can be foreseen, for example. in cases where a farm worker is due to retire. But this is already catered for in the Bill because Clause 29(i)(a) specifically says,
"… vacant possession is or will be needed"—
558
and it goes on to say—
"… to house a person who is or is to be employed …".
Hence we have already provided for advance applications and there is no need to make this Amendment.
I should like to say that it is undoubtedly highly desirable that local authorities should be given as much earning as possible of impending claims on their resources. We shall emphasise that in publicity material which we expect to produce and in the guidelines that we issue to ADHACs and local authorities. One of the major advantages that the system set up by the Bill has over the present system, so far as farmers and local authorities are concerned, is that it will enable both of them to plan ahead in these sorts of cases. I know that the noble Lord said that his Amendment was not necessary in strict legal terms but for the reasons which I have given I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord BURNHAM: I should like to thank the noble Lord very much for his reply. It seems that an application can be made at any time and this will be of great help to the working of the Bill. In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.52 p.m.
Lord SANDYS moved Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 22, line 36, after ("applicant") insert ("or who is retiring after not less than in 3 years' service with the applicant").
The noble Lord said: Following on the last Amendment very closely and anticipating the next Amendment which is very closely linked to it, we are dealing at the beginning of Part IV with the rehousing situation, with special emphasis being laid on the pensioner or the would-be pensioner in the immediate future. My noble friend Lord Burnham was quite right to move his Amendment because it aimed at clarification. In setting down Amendment No. 56 which is just a little further down, we lay emphasis on the situation which is likely to occur where an application to a housing authority on grounds that vacant possession is or will be needed of a dwelling house which is subject to a protected occupancy can be slotted into the situation that I have in mind.
Let us imagine there is a farm with three farm cottages, two currently occupied by farm workers and one empty, anticipating that before very long one of those farm-workers will be retiring and is held empty on that account. One farmworker decides to leave the employ of the farmer and become a lorry driver. He at the same time wishes to remain in residence in the area in his present house. In these circumstances, the farmer attempts to engage a replacement, does not wish to occupy his pensioner's house and wishes to seek possession of the one in which the farmworker turned lorry driver is at present in occupation. The ADHAC will inevitably say, "But look here, here is a farm with three farm cottages and one empty. In order to employ a replacement farm worker the lorry driver must go into the empty cottage, and that is our advice. "Without some modification to the Bill one can foresee a situation occurring; I suggest to the Government that the insertion of the words, "or who is retiring after not less than three years' service with the applicant" would be very suitable in Clause 29. I beg to move.
8.55 p.m.
Lord PEART: I hope noble Lords will not mind if I say that this is a curious Amendment. The movers seem to intend that where a farmer wishes to house a retiring worker who has been in his service for three years or more he should be able to apply to the local authority to provide accommodation for the current occupier of the cottage he has in mind. It is not clear whether the Amendment is meant to apply where the retiring worker is already housed by the farmer; presumably not, since it would be difficult to defend a thesis that an outgoing worker should be housed at public expense and the farmer should then obtain possession of the accommodation vacated by the retiring worker. But equally the application of the Amendment to cases where the retiring worker is housed by somebody other than the farmer is hardly a tenable proposition. It could in no circumstances be justifiable for a local authority to provide accommodation simply in order that that person's house could be taken over by a third party already housed elsewhere.
In any event the keystone of any application under Clause 29 must be whether there is an agricultural need for
560
a farmer to regain possession. The circumstances envisaged by the Amendment, however, would be as remote from agricultural need as it is possible to get. Indeed, the retention of the agricultural need test, which has not been in dispute hitherto, would mean even if an Amendment on these lines were inserted into the Bill, all applications of the kind envisaged would he bound to be rejected by the local authority who would of course take account of ADHAC advice. The effect of this Amendment would thus be nil and it is undesirable on grounds of principle which count for more when we advise against pursuing it further. I hope noble Lords will not press this Amendment.
Lord MONK BRETTON: I should like to say a word about this Amendment because I mentioned it at the time of the Second Reading and it seems to me to be of considerable importance. The per-son farmers have always tried to look after and treat in the best way they could is the long-serving worker who has been with them for a long time and who has stayed by the land. It is not necessarily so that he wants to go and live just any-where that circumstances may push him when he retires. He may well have asked, "Please, when I retire, may I live in the village to which I am accustomed in the kind of house to which I am accustomed?" and probably, until now at any rate, there has been some understanding that every effort would be made to achieve that. If we can get this Amendment into the Bill, it would mean that arrangements of that kind could he honoured by the employer. If we do not, then he will lose the choice that the employer may well have tried to give him; namely, that he could either continue to live in one of the houses on the farm if that is what he would prefer or, alternatively, if he preferred to live in a council house then doubtless every effort would have been made to get him a council house. It seems to me to be a question of whether the interests of the long-serving employee should come before those of the man who, to quote the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, took a job as a lorry driver. I think that priority should go to the man who stayed on the land. This is why I believe that this Amendment is of very considerable moral significance.
Viscount MOUNTGARRET: Through-out the afternoon the general feeling has been that local authorities will provide accommodation and that tenants will be able to choose whether they live in agricultural or council houses. Some of us seem to have overlooked the fact that there is a tremendous shortage of housing. The help which local authorities can automatically provide is extremely small. When one considers the number of unoccupied agricultural dwellings—I say this not from the view that it is undesirable, although it is undesirable to have unoccupied dwellings—this is because there are larger agricultural holdings nowadays and, therefore, fewer farmworkers on the land. If landlords could use those buildings to rehouse people who are no longer employed by them in order to assist the local authorities, I think that many of these problems would be alleviated.
Viscount GAGE: At an earlier stage I ventured to read out some comments of the rural district councils association and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that he wished to deal with them at a later stage of the Bill. Does he wish to deal with the question now or on Clause 30? It is the same question as that which has just been raised by the noble Lord; namely, the inability of local authorities to provide houses.
Lord PEART: Obviously this question will come up later. It will be an important debate.
The Earl of ONSLOW: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Peart, whether he is saying that agricultural need does not include the rehousing of one's pensioned workers? I understood the noble Lord to say this, and I should like him to clarify the point.
Lord SANDYS: We have had an interesting debate, although I was surprised that the noble Lord the Leader of the House described this as a peculiar Amendment. I believe it is a welcome Amendment so far as a very large number of agricultural workers are concerned and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Monk Bretton and to other noble Lords who have supported it. It is quite evident that there is a need for housing for the retired worker. In the years prior to retirement there may be considerable anxiety over the future in the family
562
of the worker who is about to retire, and this is a situation which could he catered for if the Government accepted this very small Amendment. However, the manner in which the Government have responded so far does not encourage me. Nevertheless, I believe that there is a real point here. While I suggest that it will be for the benefit of your Lordships' Committee if I withdraw it now, I shall return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.4 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 22, line 37, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Earl said: I am gild to see that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, is involved with this part of the Bill. We were delighted to have the earlier involvement of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, but there was not very much "give" in the replies of the noble Baroness. Now that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, is to be involved with this part of the Bill we hope to see perhaps a little more "give".
The clause says, in effect, that in application by a farmer can be made to a local authority if three conditions are fulfilled. First, he has to show that he wishes to house a farmworker in his house. Secondly, he has to show that he is unable to find suitable alternative accommodation. Thirdly, he has to show that the local authority ought, in the interests of efficient agriculture, to provide a house.
The Amendment which I have put down has, as the purpose behind it, to draw attention to the fact that the local authority appear to have the last word about whether or not an applicant can provide alternative accommodation for an out-going worker. If the applicant thinks that he is unable to provide accommodation by any reasonable means, he can ask the local authority for a house. Of course, the local authority may take the view that the applicant has alternative accommodation available, although it may be accommodation which is being kept for some other reason, such as an incoming worker. Therefore, the local authority can refuse to provide a house. The farmer can then refer the case to the ADHAC which may appreciate the farmer's commitments regarding what appears to be a spare house,

563
and they may advise that a house for the outgoing worker is urgently needed.
The question that I should like to put to the Committee is whether the local authority will act on the advice of the ADHAC or whether they will go behind it, as there is nothing to compel the authority to act on the advice. As the Bill is drafted, the local authority can argue with the farmer over what houses he has got. Possibly some of the houses are not even used for agriculture; it may be that some of them are empty. I believe it is possible that this part of the Bill could, like a whirlpool, suck into it many houses which are not strictly affected by the Bill.
The implication is that if the farmer has any other houses which are empty, for the purposes of this part of the Bill they can be made available. A farmer may have empty houses—for instance, houses which are awaiting modernisation. I believe that it would be quite wrong for modernisation to be held up, interrupted or postponed because the local authority may say, "There is a house which is empty at the moment. Therefore you shall put your outgoing farmworker into that house".
It may be that the farmer has houses which he keeps for seasonal workers. This happens in certain places. In my view, it would be wrong for such a house to be used for housing an outgoing farm-worker. It may be that there is a house which is connected to the farm office which is normally occupied by the clerical staff. Would the local authority take the view that that house should be used? Or one can take the other slightly extreme but perfectly possible example, where a new dairy set-up is being built and the farmer might think that he would build a stockman's house with it, and it may be that the stockman's house is built and finished first. As I understand it, the local authority could say, "There is an empty house; the outgoing farmworker should go into that".
I believe it would be quite illogical and unfair, and indeed quite wrong, for the local authority to escape the obligation put upon them by the Bill simply because of the possible availability of this type of house. I believe that subsection (1)(b) is reasonable in so far as it permits the applicant to go to the local authority if he
564
cannot find suitable alternative accommodation, but I do not think it is reasonable for the local authority to have the final say as to whether certain accommodation is available, and, if they think it is, to refuse to meet the obligation which the Bill puts upon them. For this reason I venture to suggest that the Bill as it stands at the moment is too loosely drafted and I should be grateful to hear the noble Lord's opinion. I hope he will not be obliged to advise us to resist the Amendment because I genuinely should like to know his opinion. I beg to move.
Lord MIDDLETON: I do not think there is any dispute that if a farmer has a perfectly good house standing empty for no good reason the local authority would be perfectly justified in refusing to rehouse, but I can think of a number of possible reasons for other empty houses in the same ownership. My noble friend Lord Sandys quoted a very good example in the last Amendment, and my noble friend Lord Ferrers quoted some good examples just now. Noble Lords will be able to think of many others for themselves, but I should like to ask whether the Government, by the use of the word "reasonable" in Clause 29(1)(b), mean that if the employer can show that an apparently available empty house is required to fulfil another housing need the local authority cannot refuse to rehouse on the grounds that the farmer already has alternative accommodation. If so, it seems to me that there is scope for a great deal of argument as to whether other houses owned by the employer could by reasonable means be provided.
Also, I think there is the possibility of a great variation in interpretation as between various housing authorities. This clause is drawn in very general terms. That was admitted by the Secretary of State for the Environment in Committee in another place, when he said that he would look at the paragraph to see whether it could be tightened up. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that it is too widely drawn.
Lord PEART: I hope that this Amendment does not herald disagreement on an issue which until now has not been in dispute. The Consultation Document made the point that it seemed difficult to justify access to local authority housing in cases where a farmer who had provided a cottage to be vacated, either owned or

565
had access to another vacant cottage. During the subsequent consultations and during the discussion on the Bill itself, both in another place and elsewhere, there has been general agreement that before a farmer applies to a housing authority he should first look to his own housing or to housing which he effectively controls, such as cottages on his farm but in the name of, say, his wife. I give that as an example. He can then see whether he has anything suitable to offer. I am sure that as a basic starting principle that is right. It would be wrong to place housing authorities under a strong duty to find accommodation in cases where the farmer could perfectly well offer a house of his own.
Having said that, I hope I can reassure noble Lords that the present wording will not place undue restrictions on farmers. When the Bill was first published the subsection which we are now discussing was worded differently. At that time it said that the criterion to be satisfied was that—and I quote—
"Vacant possession cannot be obtained by any reasonable means"
unless the housing authority provided the accommodation. As a result of the debate in Committee in another place we were persuaded that that wording went too wide and could be read as meaning that a farmer should look beyond his own resources for housing over which he had a measure of control. But the subsection as it now stands should remove that particular anxiety. I should like to believe that noble Lords will agree that the amended version, which refers only to the applicant—that is, the farmer—being unable to provide accommodation "by any reasonable means", shows our good faith in not wanting to impose unfair burdens on the farmer.
I know anxiety on this matter has been expressed previously by noble Lords and by the noble Baroness, and I am anxious that we should achieve something which will work sensibly. I would only say that there is no satisfactory way of distinguishing in a Statute the various cases which are bound to arise. We are breaking new ground here. In some it will be entirely reasonable for a farmer to say, "Here is a spare cottage which I have but which I cannot use to rehouse this former employee". To try to write criteria into the law, I believe, would be an elaborate
566
and fruitless task. However, it is our intention to deal with them in the guidelines of ADHAC and in the circular to local authorities, so that a clearer picture can be given of the sort of case where a farmer should or should not be expected to provide accommodation out of his own stock. As we have said on a previous occasion, both the circular and he guidelines are to be the subject of consultations with bodies representing farmers and landowners as well as farm workers and local authorities. I hope that with this explanation noble Lords will find less reason to be anxious, as I know they are, about the subsection as it stands and that therefore they will be willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. However, I am still disturbed that he did not answer the specific points I raised which are the ones we are concerned about. In effect the noble Lord said, "Don't worry; it will appear in a circular of advice to ADHACs"; but I do not think, quite frankly, that that is very convincing. What we are putting into the Bill is, fundamentally, potential legal material upon which people will argue and upon which, if necessary, they will go to the courts.
The real point I was concerned with—and perhaps I did not put it quire clearly enough—is this. A farmer or landowner may go to a local authority and say, "Will you house this man? I have not got any alternative accommodation", and he may say sotto voce, "Well, there is that house, but it will have to be modernized; and there is that house, but it is going to be used for a seasonal worker". Or he may say, still sotto voce, "There is that house into which I will put clerical staff". But he will go to the local authority and will say to them, "Will you house this person, because I have no suitable accommodation?". The ADHAC may take the advice of the farmer and say, "Well, he is quite right in keeping this house for these specific purposes". The point is, does the local authority then have the right, notwithstanding the applicant's claim, notwithstanding the ADHAC's advice, to turn round and say, "You may say you have not got any alternative accommodation, but we say you have, and therefore we will not rehouse". That is the point. I should be grateful

567
if the noble Lord would be kind enough to try to answer, because if that is so, then I think it puts too much power in the hands of the local authority, because it enables them to escape the obligation which the Bill puts on to them.
Lord PEART: I recognise the arguments and I understand the worries put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Indeed, I remember that during Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies, was concerned lest cottages expressly earmarked for workers in retirement might be cited by a local authority as a reason for refusing to rehouse an outgoing worker who is not retiring. Worries have also been voiced lest the subsection might result in farmers having to house exworkers in accommodation which happens to he empty, perhaps, because it is used for housing seasonal workers, for example, or because a different worker has not been replaced, or even because it has long since been dilapidated. Anxiety has also been expressed lest farmers might be obliged to look to accommodation totally unconnected with the farm.
I have tried to explain the subsection carefully, and I have looked into it. It enables proper account to be taken of the various circumstances where a farmer may well have other accommodation which would not be suitable for rehousing an outgoing worker. It is deliberately cast so that in any individual cases local authorities may use their discretion—and this must be so—as to whether a farmer can reasonably be expected to provide housing himself. So the mere existence of a spare cottage does not, of necessity, render the application invalid. An example may help, drawn from the instances just cited. If a farmer wishes, as part of his overall management strategy, to retain a cottage for an employee who is going to retire in the foreseeable future, and does not want to see it occupied instead by a former employee who has taken a job outside agriculture, that, on the face of it, seems a valid point which a local authority ought to take account of in considering his application. I do not want to repeat the argument about the circular to the local authorities. I have tried to reply. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment. I will naturally look at it again, but as it is, I do not think there are any fears.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord because I realise he is trying to be helpful, but he still has not answered the point I was trying to put. I do not want to be horrible to the noble Lord, but perhaps I can try to put it again more clearly. A farmer may not be able to rehouse a farm worker. He may apply to the local authority because he cannot rehouse him. The ADHAC may say he cannot rehouse him. But am I right in believing that the local authority can say, "We think you can rehouse him. Despite the fact that the ADHAC say your application is reasonable, despite the fact that you say your application is reason-able, we think it is unreasonable." Can the local authority say that, and, if so, will they not, therefore, be forgoing the obligations which this Part of the Bill puts on to them? If the noble Lord can answer the point now I should be grateful, but, if not, perhaps he would consider it.
Lord PEART: I will, of course, consider it. The ADHAC, of course, will consider the agricultural need, and I should have thought the local authority would take any sensible advice. This is what we are going to argue later. I should have thought that is clear.
The Earl of ONSLOW: The noble Lord brought up the point made by my noble friend Lady Sharpies about retired workers, so perhaps he could answer my question, which he has inadvertently failed to do. Is the need for retirement housing regarded as an agricultural need or not?
Lord PEART: I think this would be what the ADHAC would consider in a particular case. I have given examples of individual cases. Indeed, on this I should hope that in circularising the people concerned we shall be able to produce guidelines which will be satisfactory. But in the end it will be the ADHAC which will make the recommendation to the local authority, and it would be on agricultural need basically.
Earl FERRERS: If the noble Lord would be kind enough to read again the arguments which we have put forward, I should be grateful. Under the wording as it is in the paragraph at the moment I can see the possibility of endless argument going on between the local authority and the applicant as to whether a certain house is suitable alternative accommodation. If the noble Lord will do that, I

569
shall be happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord PEART: I will certainly look into it. I know the noble Earl is being constructive. He has raised a point which I thought was covered by my argument, but if he feels as he does, of course I will look at it again.
Earl FERRERS: I am much obliged. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.25 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 22, line 39, leave out ("and").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, and to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 60. I have put down these two Amendments at the particular request of the Association of District Councils, who are very concerned about the implications of this whole Bill. We have already debated this matter, and I do not wish again to go over all the arguments. This is designed as a very small point to meet some of the problems which they will face when the responsibility for rehousing is to fall on all of them. Clearly the responsibility will be much greater in some areas than in others, and I believe particularly in the South East where there are larger numbers of farm workers than in other parts of the country, and the responsibility is likely to be all the greater.
Then, too, they come up against problems where there is not any really suitable land on which to build houses, because if you wanted to build a house that is reasonable for a particular worker the land might all be green belt, or other-wise zoned, and it cannot be built on. So for them there are going to be very real problems indeed. They have asked for this small Amendment, which would place an obligation, before the local authority is appealed to, at any rate to make inquiries in local estate agents and the local newspaper or other places where it might be thought there might be houses made available. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: These Amendments are interesting because during the debate we have just had on Amendment No. 57, when my noble friend reaffirmed the basic principle which we consistently maintain,
570
that farmers should look to their own housing and that which they control before the obligation on the local authority arises, there was a certain a mount of disquiet felt and expressed by noble Lords opposite. The interesting thing about these Amendments is that they not only reinforce the principle which the Government have been arguing but they seem to extend it. The end result of the Amendment which the noble Baroness has moved would be that farmers should not only examine their own housing stock but should also, within reason, see what else is available and suitable in the neighbourhood.
I suppose people have different views, and there seems to be quite a difference of opinion over this on the Opposition Front Bench because these Amendments appear to me mutually exclusive. We believe that adequate guidance can he prepared to assist local authorities in exercising their discretion as to what a farmer can and cannot be expected to provide from his own housing, but the further task of devising guidance and the decisions eventually to be taken by local authorities would he much more complicated if accommodation owned by people other than the farmer also had to be taken into account. This, even if it is not really intended, is what this Amendment means.
It seems also that the Amendment risks placing a much more onerous burden on the farmer, because it could be read as suggesting that he must take active steps to seek out alternative accommodation over which he exercises no influence or control. While it is a matter of fact that you can establish whether or no: he owns spare cottages, it is quite a different matter for a farmer to show that he has made reasonable efforts and no such alternative accommodation—that is, the sort of accommodation envisaged in the Amendment—is available. I think it is putting a very wide burden on t le farmer and one which I do not feel that the Committee would want to support. It having had an airing, I hope that the noble Baroness withdraws this Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I do not intend to press the Amendment and I make no apology for tabling it because by the Bill the Government have succeeded in putting two groups of people into an intolerable

571
position. First, they have upset the farmers, who comprise one of our efficient industries, an industry that is actually making a positive contribution in our critical economic circumstances. Secondly, to satisfy so far as I can see almost nobody, they are upsetting the district councils by placing on them an obligation which in many cases they will be unable to meet. This is in principle the wrong way to legislate, as I have previously said; it will make the housing situation worse. I have sympathy with the point of view expressed by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, because it seems that this provision will have the effect of penalising the good farmer who has tried to make adequate provision and think ahead, and he will suffer by it. I tabled the Amendment partly to draw attention to the contradictions in the Bill and partly because I consider that the principle underlying it, whatever merit it may have, should not be carried through by placing on people obligations which, ultimately, in many instances they will be unable to meet. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.32 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("efficient").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is designed to delete the word "efficient" and I hope the Minister realises that it is not a frivolous proposal. Indeed, the more I think about it the more important the Amendment becomes, or at least our consideration of the issue it raises. Clause 29 allows a farmer to apply to the local authority for rehousing an individual provided three criteria are complied with, one of which is that the local authority should, in the interests of efficient agriculture, provide suitable alternative accommodation. What does "efficient" mean? I have a bee in my bonnet about this, because we often use "with-it" words which sound well but the meaning of which we do not really know. I tabled a similar Amendment to the Bill to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, in which the British Aerospace Corporation must carry out "the efficient production of aeroplanes". I asked the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, what the efficient production of aeroplanes was and he replied, in effect, "We all know what
572
'efficient' means". But frankly I do not, and I should like noble Lords to give this matter some consideration.
Is it right for a local authority to determine whether a farmer is efficient before it accepts an obligation to rehouse? What does "efficient" mean? Is the criterion the output from the farm; if a farmer provides a good output does that mean that he is efficient? Is it that the farm should be profitable? Does it depend on the number of man-days the farmer uses on his holding? Is it the output per employee? Is it the return per acre? Is it the profit per acre—or what? What exactly is efficiency?
This is important because the local authority is obliged under the Bill as drafted to rehouse a person only if the farmer concerned is engaged in "efficient agriculture", and one immediately thinks of the small farmer with a small acreage and perhaps one house and one employee. That employee may have been given notice or may have handed in his notice but wishes to stay on in his cottage. The farmer may say to the local authority that he wants the house. That farmer may be working all the hours God gives. Is it right that the local authority could say, "You are not efficient; you are only small and you are making only £1,000 a year? That is not efficient; therefore we are not going to rehouse the person".
I think this word "efficient" is highly relevant to this clause. I do not know whether the word "efficient" ought to be there, because if it means anything at all it means that the local authority is going to choose whether that farmer is efficient. But who is going to do the choosing?. Is it going to be the chairman of the housing committee or the housing officer or an employee of the local authority? Who is the person who is going to say, "We are not going to take on the obligation of rehousing because that farmer is not an efficient farmer". I should be grateful if the noble Lord would let us know the exact meaning of this word "efficient" and what he feels the addition of that word adds to this Bill. I beg to move.
Lord BURNHAM: In rising to support my noble friend I should like to return to the point I tried to make on Second Reading. There is one certainty and that is that the farmer concerned considers the house to be necessary in the interests of agriculture. If he did not think it

573
necessary, he would get rid of it the moment this Bill comes into law. As my noble friend said, it is difficult to define efficiency. Clearly the man principally concerned thinks he needs the house. As in any case there is a fair degree of confiscation without compensation in this Bill, I should like to suggest that the judgment of the man who is operating the enterprise should be paramount, and I support the omission of the word "efficient".
Lord PEART: There is some danger that we may get into semantics on this, but may I try to explain why it is in. I think noble Lords would agree that the concept of efficiency in agriculture is fairly well known. Without claiming that this one word is vital to the smooth operation of the Bill, I see advantage in keeping it where it is, and I shall explain. We already have it under the present agricultural tied cottage system in the Rent Act 1965 as amended by the 1970 Agriculture Act. One of the grounds on which a farmer can apply for an order of possession against a tied cottage occupant to be suspended less than six months after the end of the employment is that the efficient management of any agricultural land or the efficient carrying on of any agricultural operations would be seriously prejudiced. I do not want to make too much of this point, although I must remind the noble Lord that the concept of efficiency was introduced into the 1970 Amendment in this House by noble Lords on the opposite Benches. I should prefer to retain a word which has been used in a similar context and which has caused no problem. It is possible to take any word in the English language and have a debate about its meaning. As this has been the practice and noble Lords approved of it I should prefer to keep it in the Bill.
Lord BALERNO: I think there is some confusion here. Under this clause the judge of efficiency is the local authority. In the case cited by the noble Lord, Lord Peart, the judge of efficiency was the farmer or some farming organisation. There I think is a major difference. I should hate to have my farming efficiency judged by my local authority. I would turn round to my local authority and say, "Am I competent to be a judge of the efficiency of a coal mine of which you have many in the local authority?" I think this is a vital difference and would
574
most strongly support my noble friend in his Amendment.
Lord SANDYS: I too should like to join the voices from this side of the Committee in saying to the noble Lord the Leader of the House that he may consider that this is semantic but that there is something much more real in it. This was perhaps appreciated by his colleagues. May I draw the attention of the noble Lord the Leader of the House to what his Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Gavin Strang, said on 29th June in Standing Committee K? It was quite clear that Mr. Strang realised probably rather better than the noble Lord, Lord Peart, what the Opposition was attempting to bring to the Government's attention. He said:
"Thirdly—and this is obviously the critical area to which the honourable Member for Westmorland particularly addressed his remark—I see a clear case for giving the ADHACs some indication of the criteria that they should apply when determining not only what constitutes efficient agriculture in the terms of Amendment No. 84, but also what circumstances may give rise to agricultural need for re-housing facilities and what would lend agricultural urgency to that need."—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee K; 29/6/76, col.818.]
Clearly, the Parliamentary Secretary had in mind advice only for ADHACs but, in recognising that there was some need to set out in the guidelines what "efficient agriculture" means, he also recognised the broad issue. It is all very well for the noble Lord the Leader of the House to say that to try to write criteria into the law would be a fruitless task, as he said in earlier remarks upon the Amendment, but we would only agree with him to a limited extent. If he insists that the word "efficient" should remain in the Bill it will be an acknowledgment of the fact that words have no meaning.
Lord PEART: I am rather surprised at that argument. Noble Lords will know from their reading of the Bill—and we have argued this previously; it was argued on Second Reading—that ADFIA. Cs will advise on the interests of efficient agriculture, local authorities will take full account of that advice but that in the end the courts could be the final arbiters if there was a dispute. One has only to look at Clause 29 to see that it is specific-ally mentioned there. I shot Id have thought that this was satisfactory. The meaning of the word is known. As I said earlier, I think there is a danger that

575
noble Lords are indulging in semantics. I mean that sincerely. I believe that the word is known full well to the industry and if there are any difficulties it will not be a question of the local authority being despotic or bureaucratic in its approach. After all, we are anxious to obtain their co-operation in the best sense. Most of the rural authorities are made up of reasonable men who know farming. I am not saying that they are experts, but the point of having ADHACs is that these are the organisations to give advice to the local authority. I do not see why noble Lords should complain about the word "efficient".
Earl FERRERS: I do not believe that the noble Lord has got his finger on quite the right point. He says it is for the ADHACs to advise on questions of efficiency, but in the Bill it says that the only obligation to rehouse is when that agriculture is efficient. The noble Lord says that we are indulging in semantics, but I do not think that we are. He says that the meaning of "efficient" is known, but I do not think it is. One can find many instances where farmers, or indeed businessmen, may buy a piece of equipment costing £10,000 or £20,000. They may say, "I have bought this and I am saving three men. I am being very efficient." But the fact that they are grossly overcapitalised may mean in other terms that they are being inefficient.
I have never yet met a person who says, "I am inefficient". Everyone thinks that they are efficient. There is no Party exercise in this whatsoever. If we are putting in the word "efficient" it must contribute something to the meaning of the clause. My only fear is that if it contributes anything it is being restrictive, because it is bound to mean that the local authorities are not obliged to house anyone who, in their opinion, is not being efficient.
I am not going to press the Amendment, but I should be grateful if the noble Lord would look at this matter again. We are as anxious as he is to see that all agriculture is efficient; of course we are. But it is equally important that the local authorities should not be the arbiters of whether or not a particular farm is being efficient. I should be grateful if the noble Lord will be kind enough to look at this
576
matter again to see whether it could be a genuine improvement to the Bill.
Lord BALERNO: Before the noble Earl sits down, I should like to raise a point. I do not want to create difficulties with the noble Lord, Lord Peart. I may be wrong, but I have a feeling that, despite the great flurry which occurred over there after I spoke previously, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has not answered my question. I feel rather strongly that a local authority in an industrial area—and I farmed in an industrial area—cannot get an agricultural problem straight. It is not in any position in which to understand it, and one's experience working with urban authorities is that in anything agricultural they have not got a clue, just as I have not got a clue about coal mining. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, has a clue about both and is expert in both, but that hardly applies to a local authority in a predominantly industrial area. I should hate to feel that my efficiency, or the efficiency of any farmer, was being measured by a local authority in an industrial or urban area.
Lord PEART: I should like to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, whom I know has agriculture at heart and has played a very distinguished part in it. But I used to be on a rural district authority and even though it was in an industrial area—a coalmining area—of the North-East I do not think that those men were irrational or insensitive to the needs of industries like agriculture; in fact, the contrary was the case. There were farms side by side with pits in parts of County Durham. I think that the ADHAC system which we are to create will advise the local authority; but in the end it would be the local authority which would have to take the responsibility for housing, naturally. But on the question of advice from an agricultural point of view it will be the ADHACs which will be involved, and we shall be debating these later. Of course I am prepared to look at this; the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has asked me, as he did previously. I will certainly treat this seriously if the Opposition feel sensitive about it. I will look at it again, but I should be grateful if the noble Earl would withdraw the Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord. Of course I will withdraw

577
the Amendment, but I am not sure that I go wholly with the noble Lord when he says that urban local authorities are not necessarily insensitive to the needs of agriculture because one finds that the Department of the Environment is fairly insensitive to the requirements of agriculture, as is witnessed by this Bill. Therefore I think that the apprehensions of my noble friend are at least justified. At this juncture I will certainly withdraw the Amendment, but I might return to it at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord PEART Lord PEART moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 23, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) in the Isles of Scilly, the Council of those Isles".
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, together with those related to it, provide for the Bill to apply automatically to the Isles of Scilly subject to any changes which the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food may together make in a joint order. This would bring the Bill into line with the Rent Act 1968, which extends to the Scillies subject to an order-making power similar to that now proposed for the Bill.
As at present drafted, the Bill would not apply in the Isles until an order was made. As a matter of policy, the Bill should protect all qualifying agricultural workers in England and Wales simultaneously. The sole means of affording this protection to agricultural workers in the Isles without these Amendments would be to make an order extending the Bill to the Scillies at the same time as the Bill is brought into effect for the rest of England and Wales. This would be, I believe, an unnecessarily cumbersome procedure which, I hope noble Lords will agree, is best avoided. I therefore hope that this Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: We on this side of the Committee are not going to object to this extension. I see clearly the point of it. However, as we are debating this particular subsection of the clause, I should like to ask the noble Lord how many London boroughs he thinks, seriously, are likely to have to rehouse agricultural workers, and whether he has included London boroughs simply for the sake of uniformity or whether he seriously
578
imagines that inner London boroughs, which are of course housing authorities, might be called upon to house agricultural workers.
Lord PEART: There are some farms, I understand, in the Greater London Area. I can give the figure for the Scillies, but I cannot give the noble Baroness the other information. I shall try to get it; it may be available. In the Isles, there are only 20 argricultural tied cottages.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
[Clause 30 Duty of housing authority concerned]:
9.53 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 23, line 36, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) Advice from the committee under subsection (3) above that the authority ought in the interests of efficient agriculture to provide suitable alternative accommodation shall be conclusive evidence of the matters contained in section 29(1)(c) above.").
The noble Lord said: Under the present wording of subsection (5) the authority have to take full account of the advice tendered to them by the advisory committee. This wording leaves scope, I feel, for the authority to disagree with the committee's assessment of agricultural need and urgency if they feel they have good reason to do so. This Amendment seeks to provide, first, that the committee's recommendations on the agricultural aspects of the matter should be conclusive on those aspects and not open to question by the authority; and, secondly, that in any legal proceedings relating to the duty of the local authority the court would have to consider only whether the local authority had performed their duty: it would not have to consider agricultural need, because that would already have been decided.
A similar Amendment was discussed at the Committee stage in another place, but it was withdrawn when the Government undertook to consider the matter further before the Report stage. In the event, however, the Government did not return to this point at the Report stage. I should like to ask the Government whether they have, in the Under-Secretary of State's words in another place, considered

579
"… it carefully so that reconsideration can be given at the appropriate time",
and whether they think that the appropriate time might perhaps not be now. I beg to move.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I think it was the noble Baroness who, on a previous Amendment, said in effect that there is no point in having a dog and barking yourself. I think that in relation to the Amendment that we were discussing just now, the fears of my noble friend Lord Balerno will be alleviated if the ADHAC advice was conclusive evidence. In supporting my noble friend on this matter I would ask the Committee to bear with me if I refer in part to Amendment No. 64. I ask this because my argument for these Amendments is so closely aligned and interdependent. It is essential that we get this part of the Bill right, and I hope that it will save time later that and I shall not be repetitive.
It is a well-established fact that local housing authorities do not now give any priority to families moving from tied cottages unless there is a legally enforceable eviction order. In my experience, authorities even go so far as to advise applicants to improve their position by getting an eviction order made against them. If these circumstances are any precedent—and I hold that they are as they are adopted nation-wide—it is reasonable to assume that local authorities will give a low priority to the requirement that they should use their best endeavours, and thus an almost impossible situation will arise. This situation will be further complicated if the local authorities overrule the advice of the ADHAC. Local authorities must have some obligation to house such families as have been accepted by the ADHAC. Failing such a duty, the farmer will not be able to plan or run his farm efficiently even where the ADHAC has confirmed agricultural need. If ADHACs are to serve any useful purpose, their decision must be binding on the authorities as, in effect, is the decision of a judge in granting an eviction order now.
There are far too many Committees whose standing has been debased by lack of powers and whose decisions given in an advisory capacity have not been accepted. Such instances only serve to increase the bureaucratic bog and agriculture can do without any further
580
progress down that slope. At the moment the farmer is the sole arbiter as to when possession of a cottage is required. His decision, backed by an eviction order, is binding on a local authority. Surely it is equitable that the ADHAC decision, which must be made on the grounds of efficient farming, is also binding on the authority. As we have heard, many people are concerned that some local authorities, particularly urban ones, are unsympathetic to agriculture's needs. This Amendment does not alter the existing basis of the duty on local authorities. I consider it is therefore a reasonable Amendment, within the spirit of the Bill and thoroughly beneficial.
The Earl of ONSLOW: There is one point that comes to my mind in relation to this Amendment and to the next and to several others. It is the possibility of a maverick council. We have had an example of that at Clay Cross and an example of this in certain Labour-controlled councils who have rebelled and are rebelling against the idea of cuts in rate support grant ceilings, and we have had the example of Camden Council whose housing expenditure is totally out of control through gross inefficiency. I concede that Camden is not covered with rolling green acres. If we get a maverick council, what are we to do about it? I should have thought that if the ADHAC advice becomes mandatory this will stop any maverick council from being able to override or ignore ADHAC advice.
Lord SANDYS: There is a further point on introducing this Amendment which is both helpful to the Government and will be helpful to those who serve on the ADHACs which are to be set up by the Bill. That is at the heart of the constitution of the ADHAC in its advisory rôle. If it is stated nowhere in the Bill that the advice given shall be conclusive, it will obviously detract both from the rô le of the ADHAC and the quality and acceptability of the advice being given. I am sure this is self-evident but nevertheless should be stated here as indeed it was stated in another place in Standing Committee. The ADHACs will attract to themselves the benefit by being accepted as a body with conclusive advice in this sphere, and gain membership thereby.
10 p.m.
Lord PEART: I expected noble Lords

581
to press me hard on this matter; I know they feel strongly about it. This also was shown during debates on Second Reading. It would be misleading to suggest that local authorities will normally wish to question the advice which an ADHAC provides. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and others feel there may be maverick councils, unsympathetic ones. I do not think so, because the district councils have given assurances that they will make this scheme work and I am certain that they will act as responsible men and women, democratically elected. I know about the fears mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, in relation to farming communities near or in close proximity to industrial areas where the local authorities will be dominated by people not in agriculture or by other people outside agriculture. Local authorities can be expected to behave as reasonable men if they are going to try to fulfil what we wish them to do when this Bill becomes law. They can be expected to welcome independent advice on the agricultural aspects, which we have stressed over and over again. In most cases they will accept that advice almost without question.
We expect, subject to the views of the interested parties, to emphasise in a circular to local authorities that in practice authorities can expect ADHAC advice to be authoritative on agricultural aspects of an application, and that they should not as a general rule want to call it in question so far as these aspects are concerned. If authorities feel that they have any reason for doing so, they should as a first step consult the Agricultural Wages Committee chairman who appointed the ADHAC, with a view to the matter being further considered. This is the procedure we shall adopt. However, having said that, I may say that we go some way to sympathise with the spirit of the Amendment. I know from the way the Amendment has been moved and I know from noble Lords who are involved in agriculture that there are worries that we do not go far enough here.
But the wording of the Amendment goes too far. It seeks to alter the careful balance that we have established in the Bill between local housing authorities and agricultural dwelling-house advisory committees. The local housing authority must retain—as noble Lords opposite will
582
agree—the final responsibility for deciding on the allocation of council housing in the light of advice they have received. This is the whole purpose of the Bill. This is the nub of it. Here we are dealing with democratically elected bodies w ho have long experience of this rô le and are the only bodies in a position to take these decisions where the relative priorities of different claims must be weighed against the housing resources available. We have every reason to believe ADHACs will do an excellent job and will be highly valued by local authorities because of it. It is a very different matter from endorsing this Amendment, which implies that their advice will never be open to question or challenge from the body they are supposed to be advising. Nor would it be an especially good start to relations between local authorities and the agricultural community under the Bill if an anomalous statutory relationship of this kind were created.
This Amendment, if it was passed, would serve only to weaken the co-operation which we should like to see as a feature of the Bill's operation. I am sure that noble Lords will not wish to do that and will not wish to frustrate the administration if this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, as it will. I am certain that they will not wish to see it founder and there is a danger that if the Amendment is accepted it will weaken the co-operation. I have stressed that. Again, I hope that noble Lords, while they have their strong views on this matter, will not press the Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: The noble Lord's answer shows the absolute mess that we are getting into over this matter. He shakes his head, but here we have this paraphernalia of ADHACs being set up, people being drawn in to serve on the ADHACs and to go out to investigate the farmers and their various problems. They then make their report to the local authority and give their advice and the local authority can throw it in the waste paper basket and take no notice of it. So what is the use of having the ADHAC, the impartial body to go in to see whether the application is reasonable, whether the housing is required for agriculture, when after having made their recommendation the local authority can take absolutely no notice of it whatsoever?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I must say that I find it amusing that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that in his opinion everyone who is democratically elected must necessarily be responsible. I hardly need draw noble Lords' attention to a number of local authorities who have not acted in a responsible manner at all. We have only to think of the North-East of England. The argument that because a person is democratically elected he will therefore naturally behave responsibly, does not add up; certainly not regarding this Bill.
Lord PEART: May I say that noble Lords must accept that people who are elected in this country—in England and Wales; the Bill does not apply to Scotland—will act reasonably and sensibly. On the other hand, if they do not, there is always a writ of mandamus.
Earl FERRERS: Then what—if they do not act reasonably?
Lord PEART: The farmer always has the right to take out a writ of mandamus.
Earl FERRERS: That is not an argument. What farmer will take a local authority to court? It would not be worth his while. He would not have the money, and it would be a hopeless waste of time. That is the dilemma which the Government are getting themselves into. They have plucked one area out of the whole housing system and are trying to alter it. The very nature of the Bill is constructed to put the obligation on the local authority, but when you come to the detail of whether the local authority will accept the obligation, then of course the Government run away from it and they say, "We have set up these Committees, spent £5 million, and done all this", but at the end the local authority can take no notice. They can read the report, throw it away and do nothing at all. There is no binding requirement on the local authority to take the advice of these people. Therefore, what is the point of setting up the bodies?
Lord BROWN: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred to the possible action of a local authority in saying of the advice they have been given, "Well, fling it into the waste paper basket." It is clear that in principle you could make the
584
same remark about every conceivable advisory committee. If you expect this particular form of local government to behave like that you can say that of everybody. I notice that the Conservative Party is always keen to see when the Government puts any power in the hands of the Secretary of State that he has advisory committees and he must consult with everybody. Why do they not say of every consultation, "What is the use of the consultation because it is in the hands of the Secretary of State or the local authority to fling it into the waste paper basket?" That is a completely barren argument.
Earl FERRERS: With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, it is not a barren argument because he knows perfectly well that there have been plenty of occasions when Governments have set up bodies to investigate various problems, that those bodies have made their reports and Governments have not accepted them.
Lord BROWN: The rô le of the advisory committee is to offer advice which may or may not be accepted. That is always the case with any type of advisory committee.
Lord JANNER: I regret that I was not present when the argument began, but I listened with interest to what the noble Lord said a moment or two ago. A local authority is responsible to the electors. A local authority is also responsible to the public and there is such a thing as public opinion. If a local authority does something which is wrong, one may be sure that those who feel that they have been badly affected will see to it that that local authority does not continue in power. There is also the media which is prepared to bring forward any opinion, particularly if it happens to be adverse to a local authority. What is the noble Lord worrying about?
Lord MIDDLETON: The great worry is that there may be local authorities which think that, although they should rehouse agricultural workers, the duty which is placed upon them by this Bill should not be complied with because of public opinion and that therefore they should rehouse other people.
Lord PEART: I hope that noble Lords have read Clause 30(5) which states that the authority,

585
"… shall take full account of any advice tendered to them by the committee in accordance with section 31 of this Act, and in any legal proceedings relating to the duty imposed on the authority by this section, evidence shall be admissible of the advice so given".
Therefore the authorities must take full account of that advice. I should have thought that that would have satisfied noble Lords opposite.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I have read very carefully subsection (5). It is one of the subsections that I find quite easy to understand. However, the noble Lord has not answered the question about maverick councils. It seems to me that the vast majority of local councils will behave in the way which the noble Lord has described, but we have had maverick councils. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, if they choose to ignore this point the cost of taking out a writ of mandamus is enormous. Also the cost of taking a local authority to court is very high, although they have the rate-payers' money behind them to take the case right up to the House of Lords if they want to do so. But that is a very expensive amusement. My other point is the one which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Middleton. If a borough has a bad housing problem and the pressures upon a local authority are so great that they then, through public opinion, rehouse another sector—public opinion forces them to ignore their duty to rehouse the agricultural worker who has left his job—it seems to me that there will he great difficulties. This problem is not quite so easy to brush off as the noble Lord makes it out to be.
Lord MIDDLETON: I wish I was as optimistic as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, when he says that most local authorities will not question the advice of the agricultural advisory committees. I take the opposite view. It must be made clear that this Amendment does not seek to interfere with the rehousing responsibilities of local authorities. The purpose of the Amendment is not to provide that the Committee's recommendations shall be conclusive evidence that the authorities should rehouse, merely that these recommendations should be conclusive on the question of agricultural need. As my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, that is exactly why the ADHACs have been set up. I am quite certain that the role
586
of the agricultural advisory committee should be emphasised without in any way taking away the responsibility from the local authority. However, I am not going to press this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that the wording might possibly create an anomalous statutory situation. I should like to take the wording back and look at it again with a view possibly to producing something a little better at another stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 24, line 1, after ("shall") insert ("within two months of the date of application made under section 29 above,").
The noble Earl said: In this clause, which deals with the duties of the local authority to rehouse, a time element has already been introduced—and rightly so. The authority concerned has, within seven days, to inform the occupier of the dwelling-house—why we cannot say "house" I do not know; apparently we now have to call them "dwelling-house;"—that an application has been made under the previous clause. What this Amendment seeks to do is to make the authority come to a decision within eight weeks. Your Lordships' House is having to make decisions on five highly distasteful and controversial Bills within sever weeks; all I am asking is that the local authority should have to make a decision on one house within eight weeks, and I do not think that is asking too much. If we do not impose a time limit on local authorities then a maverick local authority—and I go back to that because I am: lure they can exist, and on the previous Amendment I gave possible examples—can say that it is making its best endeavour; and in fact make no decision at all, thus in a way invalidating the whole half-loaf or half-fish that the agriculture industry has been given in return for the abolition o ' the tied system.
I am not saying that all local authorities will do this. All I am trying to say is that there is this terrible danger of the maverick local authority. Also I think it is not unreasonable to suggest that eight weeks is not too long a time in which to make a decision in regard to one house. I beg to move.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: In very many pieces of legislation Parliament has seen the need for the provision of time limits and this need has been particularly appreciated in agricultural legislation. Agriculture is an efficient, multi-million pound business in which quick decisions are vital. Regrettably there is concern in dealing with local authorities and finding more and more delays. I have encountered these delays, both with local authorities and with the Department. A time limit suggested in a Government circular has no legal backing and therefore no parties are bound by such limits as are stated. Therefore there is a very real need to write a time limit into the Bill rather than to rely on a Government circular. Naturally with the growing pressure of work on local authorities those decisions which can be postponed because of there being no legal time limits will suffer most. Unreasonable delays must not be allowed to happen in this vital area of agriculture and therefore I consider it essential that a legal time limit is inserted by which time the local authority must notify its decision.
Baroness BIRK: Of course I see and accept the spirit of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and supported by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It is perfectly true that in a vast number of cases one hopes that the local authorities will be able to decide without undue delay, and indeed within that time, whether or not an application is substantiated. But it really would not be sensible to specify a rigid time limit in the Bill, since there may be occasional cases where, for a very good reason, the authority cannot meet the deadline. Two months is just within one council meeting, or just outside it, or between two. There may be cases where the circumstances are complicated, or where there is some dispute and the farmer or farm worker has applied to an ADHAC for advice on agricultural aspects of the situation; and that advice may be delayed because one of them who wishes to discuss it with ADHAC is ill.
It is for this reason that it would be unduly rigid to write a limitation into the Statute. because once that is done it is mandatory and becomes quite inflexible. It is common ground that farmers will want to know as soon as possible whether or not local authorities accept that they
588
are under a duty to rehouse. The guidelines and the circular to be issued to ADHACs and local authorities will be written in such a way as to stress the need for speed in assessing applications. We have taken preliminary soundings from the local authority associations, and they consider that a realistic time limit for local authorities to aim at is around two months from the receipt of ADHAC advice, although in many cases speedier decisions could be arrived at.
One of the troubles in making a date like that is that instead of its being the maximum time, it could become the minimum, and there will be cases, we hope, where the decision is taken well within the two months. Therefore we think the best way forward would be for the Amendment to be withdrawn. But what has been said by both noble Earls will be studied very carefully and I am sure will be extremely useful in drafting the guidelines and the circular.
Earl FERRERS: I find it extremely depressing. I might almost ask this question of the noble Baroness Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Peart. Are there any Amendments we have put down on this side of the Committee which they show any likelihood of accepting at all? Here we have had this Bill, plus the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Bill, plus all the others, and stamped over very single Amendment we have put down is the word "Resist". It makes it almost, I was going to say, a farce. We will go on trying and trying. There was one Amendment on the Aircraft Bill which the Government conceded, when we put down an Amendment leaving out the words "in relation to" and inserting "in respect of": that was accepted. We express our deep gratitude and appreciation for the magnanimity of the Government in so doing.
Here we have this Bill, and not one Amendment we have put down has been accepted. I really think that the Government, with the greatest of respect, might try to meet us some way, because many of these are not Party matters. They go to try to make the Bill work better when it is in operation, and if perpetually we are to be told, "No, no; your Amendments are absolutely hopeless", this is very depressing and somewhat unconstructive.
Baroness BIRK: I really do not think that is quite fair, because a number of Amendments have been put through today

589
by the Government and have been discussed. These Amendments were the result of discussion and representation made by the Opposition in another place, and I think it is unfair of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, to say that nothing that the Opposition or his Party have said has been taken on.
Earl FERRERS: I did not say that. I said that none of the Amendments that we put down in this Committee has been accepted.
Baroness BIRK: I know, but some important Amendments which have been accepted were put forward as a result of what was said by the Opposition in another place. I should have thought that the noble Earl would consider that to be so. But, like some other Amendments, this Amendment, about which the noble Earl feels badly, is not a Party issue at all, but a question of trying to find what is sensible. There seems no point in putting into a Statute something which will be difficult for people to conform to, but because it is written down in law they are forced to do so. This is not a Party political point.
10.24 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: May I answer that? I should have thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, would feel that there were various points like this one on which it would be sensible for the Government to try to reach agreement with us. I am second to none in my defence of local authorities and what they can do. The noble Baroness will be vastly better briefed than I am on the number of occasions in law in which local authorities are obliged to make a decision within a given period of time. Certainly this applies under the planning Acts, and I think I am almost certainly right in saying on social service legislation, when matters dealing with children have to be decided within 28 days.
You cannot let things run on indefinitely. What does the local authority do? It cannot wait because the chairman is ill or the chief officer is on holiday. It has got to make a decision because it is written into the Statute. I understood the noble Baroness to say that this had been discussed with the associations and they had said that two months was a reasonable time. I should have thought two months was a very reasonable time. A cycle of committees could deal with this particular
590
question, and if it was inconvenient they could call a special committee. Here you have a non-political point on which a good case has been made out, which I should have thought the Government could accept in the interests of making better feelings between the two sides of the Committee. It really is depressing to think that nothing we say cuts any ice at all with the Government.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Let me try, possibly, and in spite of one's irritation, to lower the temperature marginally. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said that two months is about reasonable; there may be difficulties. Two months is going to be in the guidelines. If she could ay to me, "I do not like two months; the normal will be three months, and I will accept three months in the Bill", then I think it would show great signs of actually listening to what we have to say as opposed to drawing down the portcullis. The other thing she said, which I think needs querying, is that if we put into the Bill that two months is to be the maximum date to apply it will become the minimum date. I find that very difficult to understand. If it is a maximum of two months by law, and she says that becomes the minimum, she is then saying it will normally be more than two months. Still, as yet, I am afraid, the point about maverick councils has not been answered. I know, as I have said at least three times, that the vast majority of councils will behave honourably, sensibly and rightly, but this sort of thing just stops the maverick councils. I am very tempted not to withdraw this Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: I have listened very carefully and I should like to try to meet this point. I do not really like the noble Earl's idea of three months, especially when he talks about maverick councils, because this can be almost an encouragement to extend the time. I agree that the sooner these things can be done, and especially in cases like this, the better. There is a problem, as I see it, that housing management and organisation, and trying to see if you can do something about it, makes difficulties, but in order not to delay the Committee I am prepared to look at this to see whether we can find some solution on Report; because there is not anything between us on trying to get people rehoused. That is the point. I will take this back and see what I can do before we come back on Report.
The Earl of ONSLOW: With that lovely change of mood by the noble Baroness, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): I have to advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 64 is agreed I will not be able to call Amendment No. 65.
10.29 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 64:
Page 24, line 10, leave out from ("above") to ("suitable") in line 11 and insert ("it shall be their duty to secure the provision of").
The noble Earl said: I am delighted that the lovely change came about and the noble Baroness decided to take the last Amendment back to see whether she could accommodate us in some way. We are very grateful to her for that. I hope that she will be able to display an equal sense of appreciation to these Amendments which we are coming to, because this is really the most important part of the Bill. It refers to the obligation on the local authority to be responsible for rehousing. I would say at the beginning that although I speak now to Amendment No. 64 I also include with it Amendment No. 67.
The obligation on the local authorities to be responsible for rehousing is absolutely fundamental to the Bill. If a tenant of an agricultural cottage is to be permitted to continue to occupy a cottage which is required for another agricultural worker in order to enable the farm to he run as a farm, we immediately come up against a conflict of interest: the interests of the security of tenure of the man who has ceased to be an employee of the farm and the interests of agriculture, or the farmer, or the nation, whichever way you look at it, which requires the house in order to enable the farm to be properly run in the interests of efficient agriculture. That is the conflict of interest from which we cannot escape.
The Government have sought to meet this conflict of interest by the use of the two words best endeavours". They have imposed upon the local authority the duty, where a house is required for use by another employee in the interests of agriculture, to use their best endeavours to rehouse. The first thing to establish is
that it really is the Government's intention to put this obligation fairly and squarely on the local authority. I think that it is. Indeed, for support of that view I turn to the words of authority and pristine clarity of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when she said on Second Reading on 5th October at column 1166:
"If I may turn to the question of the requirements to be met by the new duty—and I emphasise that it is a duty placed upon local authorities—this is the first time that in an Act of Parliament, as I hope it will be, a statutory duty has been put upon local authorities to rehouse any group."
Those words are unequivocal and absolutely clear. It is the Government's suggestion in this Bill to put the duty upon the local authority. That being so, we think that the inclusion of the words "best endeavours" simply is not strong enough. Some way has to be found to strengthen the Bill in this respect if the Bill is to have any meaning at all.
At the moment if a local authority says on being given the job of rehousing a person, "We have used our best endeavours, but I am so sorry we cannot ! rehouse", then the whole concept on which this Bill is based comes crashing to the ground. Once they say, "We cannot rehouse", then all the paraphernalia contained in this Bill becomes meaningless. I recognise that the Government are in a dilemma over this. If they make the words stronger and put a cast iron, irrefutable and incontestable legal duty in a Parliamentary Statute for the local authority to rehouse, then it would put local authorities in an impossible and indeed intolerable situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said earlier, they are locally elected people, they have to use their wit and wisdom, and they have long enough housing lists already.
One could say, why should they have to give to farm workers who want to stay on in their houses priority on housing over and above the demands of everybody else—of other people moving into the area, of' people whose families may be growing up and who are outgrowing their existing houses, of those who are homeless, of those who are living in slum conditions? It is easy to say, why should the local authorities put these farm workers over and above those people? Even if the local authorities were to be given this obligation that the farm workers should have this priority of housing, they still may not be able to

593
meet it because the houses physically may not be there. If the Government are cutting down funds available to local authorities for building, the chances of the houses being there simply get smaller and smaller. How can they be expected to accept an outright statutory duty to rehouse, irrespective of any conditions?
This is a real dilemma, but it is precisely what happens when one gets hold of an idea and pursues it relentlessly without regard to any other consideration, as the Government have done in the Bill; they have put their heads down and gone straight ahead irrespective of all other considerations. Lord Peart said on Second Reading, and he repeated the other day, that the Bill was brought in because the National Union of Agricultural Workers wanted it and had done so for 50 years. He was entirely open about the reasons for the Bill and he was right. That is the reason for it and it is understandable; but there are other considerations and I warn noble Lords opposite that the repercussions of the measure go infinitely further than satisfying just the demand of a small proportion of the population, however important that proportion and however reasonable their demand may be.
I said that it put a virtual torpedo in the centre of the rural housing problem, and it does. In this part of the Bill we are looking straight at the torpedo, indeed straight at its nosecone, eyeball to eyeball, if one can imagine that. The two words, "best endeavours" are the very core of the Bill and I am certain they are not strong enough. We want to make them stronger and in so doing we have tried to recognise the hopeless dilemma in which the Government have put themselves by finding it difficult to make that obligation on local authorities stronger.
Our attempt at this solution is meant to be in three parts and I will refer briefly at this juncture to some of our later Amendments to explain how they fit into the pattern of our solution. We can discuss the details of those Amendments when we come to them, but if I do not refer to them now the Committee might think that they stand on their own and are not connected. The Amendments we are discussing, Nos.64 and 67, which go together, specifically point out that by removing the words, "best endeavours"
594
we are placing on local authorities a duty to rehouse. However, they do not specifically give a time limit when that obligation has to be met. The Amendments which stand in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, Nos.65 and 66, put an obligation on local authorities to rehouse within three months. However much I might sympathise with that proposal, it would build virtually a concrete wall at the end of the road by which, regardless of all other considerations—financial, economic or physical—the local authority must rehouse.
Our proposals have a little more give in them, as I hope Lord Peart will appreciate. They make it crystal clear that local authorities have a duty, but there is no time limit by which they must have fulfilled that duty. Having established by Amendments Nos.64 and 67 that local authorities have a duty to rehouse, we come on to Amendment No. 69, which says that where the ADHACs advise that the house is required as a matter of urgency, then the local authority should have to rehouse within three months. This would not apply where the ADHACs say that there is an agricultural need for the house; it would apply only where the house was required as a matter of urgency. Then there would be an obligation on the local authority to rehouse within three months.
But even then the local authority could say, "That's fine. We accept the obligation but we don't have a how. There just isn't one available. We can't physically move the family because we have nowhere to move them". Then our Amendment No. 70 says that the farmer can put up a caravan on his farm to make available the housing which is the responsibility of the local authority but which they do not have. He can then claim back from the local authority the cost he incurs by providing housing which they ought to provide but which for one reason or another they cannot provide. I felt bound to refer to these Amendments to show your Lordships how we have tried to overcome the real problem of "best endeavours" which, if left as it is, will render the Bill impotent. These have become words of great suspicion in the agricultural community, because farmers see that the right to use their cottages for people who work on their farms is going to be taken away,

595
with the obligation theoretically being put on the local authority, but with the result that the local authority will not have adequate pressure put upon them to do the rehousing.
I hope that in moving at least the first of these Amendments—the one which clearly states that the local authorities will have a duty to rehouse—that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will agree that these are constructive Amendments. They are not Party Amendments; they are designed to help the Government get themselves out of a real problem. I hope he will not follow his Cabinet colleagues and suggest, in that delicate and medieval language, that we are disembowelling the Bill. We are actually doing the reverse; we are trying to put guts into the Bill, and if the noble Lord has any knowledge of the rather more bizarre practices of our forebears which, incidentally used to be perpetrated on physicians, not by physicians, he will realise that if there is anything less attractive than pulling guts out it is pushing them back in. It is difficult to do so physically, and it is rather difficult to do legislatively.
I do not claim that we have the right or the only answer to this problem; but it is a genuine try. I am convinced that if the Bill sticks where it is with only the words, "best endeavours", then you have cut down the core because it will not operate. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will agree that this is a genuine attempt to improve the Bill and that he will accept Amendment No. 64 which I beg to move.
Lord SWAYTHLING: This Amendment has almost the same effect as the next Amendment No. 65 which stands in the name of my noble friends Lady Robson and Lord Kimberley and myself. After the excellent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I feel that I should say straight away that we are willing to support him in this Amendment. In the Bill as it stands there is no duty on the local authority to find alternative accommodation for the occupants of service houses when the farmer needs possession to continue working his farm.
There is no compulsion whatever for the local authority to provide such accommodation within a fixed time: they are required only to use their "best endeavours". This is a great weakness in the Bill. The obligation on the local
596
authorities to use their "best endeavours" means little if anything, and no time limit is set. The matter is left open and vague, and as I said on Second Reading many local authorities will regard the rehousing of ex-farmworkers and their dependents as being no more pressing and urgent than the housing of others on their list. Unless amended, this weakness gives local authorities which are already faced with housing difficulties in their area the perfect excuse for doing nothing. I wish most strongly to support the Amendment of the noble Earl.
With regard to Amendment No. 69, which concerns the time limit, I do not propose to move our Amendment although, to my mind, owing to the urgency of the need to rehouse these people it would have been much better to make it three months from the application. As the noble Earl has said, his Amendment is more flexible, and we will accord it our support. As regards Amendment No. 70 and the use of a caravan in these circumstances, this has been freely discussed in agricultural circles. A noble Lord suggested on Second Reading that caravans should be provided for employees who were leaving their employment. To my mind, it is unlikely that employees who were leaving would agree to move into a caravan; new employees, however, might be willing to be so housed. Without paragraph (b), which would allow a caravan to be placed without planning permission, there might be a long delay and the whole object of bringing a caravan into use would be lost. I hope that these Amendments will be accepted and we will support them with great willingness.
Lord MIDDLETON: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, will agree that the words "best endeavours" should be coupled with the last five lines of subsection (7) which read,
"and in assessing under this subsection the priority to be given to meet the applicant's case, the authority shall take into account the urgency of the case, the competing claims on the accommodation which they can provide and the resources at their disposal".
This has received more criticism from the agricultural community than any other part of the Bill. Farmers argue that the subsection does not lay a high enough degree of obligation upon the local authority to rehouse. On the other hand, the Association of District Councils says—and this is much quoted—that the obligation already contained in subsection (7),

597
"would impose a very high degree of obligation on housing authorities".
I believe that this is a matter for the lawyers and I am impressed by the legal arguments which were used in considering the words "best endeavours" in another place. I am not a lawyer, but I hope I am correct in saying that the argument runs like this: the most useful thing that we can do is, first, to turn to the relevant cases to see how the Judiciary have interpreted "best endeavours". In the case of Sheffield District Railway Co. v. Great Central Railway Co. in 1911, the words were held to mean "leave no stone unturned", which is a high degree of duty. Not so, however, if "best endeavours" is coupled with the matters that the local authority has to consider and take into account and which I quoted from subsection (7). In the much more recent case of Terrell v. Mabie Todd in 1952, it was decided by the High Court that "best endeavours" means no more than an obligation to do what is reasonable in the circumstances. This does not appear to measure up to the degree of duty which it seems that the Government intend; and it certainly falls a long way short of the kind of duty that the Association of District Councils is envisaging and that "best endeavours" implies.
Surely there must be a danger, if one puts words into a Bill that are the subject of two conflicting judgments, of introducing uncertainty as to their meaning and opening up a wide field for future litigation. What my noble friend's Amendment does, however, is to use virtually the same form of words that is used in Section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973:
"… it shall be the duty of the relevant authority to secure that he will be provided with such other accommodation."
It has been argued by the Government that such words would impose an impossible obligation upon local authorities, the absolute duty to which the noble Lord, Lord Peart, referred on Second Reading, when he said:
"To make this duty absolute would unacceptably erode the responsibilities of local housing authorities."—[Official Report, 5/10/76; col.1092.]
We should now turn to the decision of the Court of Appeal which was asked to adjudicate in the case of the Bristol Corporation in 1974. In that case the interpretation of the Section 39 wording
598
was that the local authority fulfil their duty when they do their best as soon as practicable to get him other accommodation. So the duty to secure alternative accommodation as worded is not interpreted as a duty that might be impossible to discharge.
On balance therefore it is argued that this is a better wording than one which has a more uncertain legal pedigree. If one interprets Section 39 of the Land Compensation Act wording as it has been interpreted in the Court of Appeal, then the wording to be omitted in Amendment No. 67 becomes unnecessary. I support my noble friend.
Lord COLLISON: I noticed that it was suggested that the Government accepted the Bill simply because the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers asked them to do so. That is a quite unfair suggestion. I hope that everyone will admit that the NUAAW is a highly responsible union. No pistol has ever been held at the head of anyone, or at the head of any Government. On the contrary, the NUAAW has argued the case for the abolition—using that word carefully of the tied cottage. The argument has been put on the basis of the social import and on humanitarian ground, and I am sure that it has been accepted by the Government in that light.
Objection was voiced to the use of the word "disembowelment" in the other place. That word was not used in this House, but I personally used the word "ravished", which may or may not he appropriate. But most certainly by eliminating dairymen and stockmen the Bill has been cut in two and rendered completely inadequate.
On the issue before us, I think I said at Second Reading that if it were possible in equity to place an absolute duty on a local authority we would welcome it, quite obviously. But we ha re to give consideration to the possibility of the local authority being able to accept an absolute duty. It has been argued on the other side that unless the absolute duty clause is there the whole thing will collapse and the Bill will not work. I have said before—almost ad nauseam—that the fact is that the Bill will work; I am convinced that it will. We have the evidence of what has gone before, that local authorities very largely meet the need when there is the case of an eviction, even when there

599
has been this unfortunate collusion in order to create a precedent for them. They have done what was necessary; they have provided the alternative accommodation.
To my mind that shows quite conclusively that they will do this under the new regulations when they become operative. Indeed, I am sure it will ease the situation; it will make the procedure much quicker than it has been before. There can be a six-month delay, and there can be extensions of that. I have said all this before, and I do not want to delay your Lordships. If it were possible to get a stronger obligation on the local authority, I would welcome it; but I want to repeat, looking at the words "use their best endeavours", that I believe they will. If an alternative form of words could be used which are acceptable, which are possible and which are workable without creating a nonsense, then I would go along with that. But that is not a matter for me to decide; that is a matter for the experts and, I suppose, the local authorities and the Government. However, I reiterate that to say that the whole thing will not work simply because one cannot place an absolute duty, for obvious reasons, on local authorities is not correct, and the argument should not be pursued in this Committee or anywhere else.
I finish this short speech as I started. The NUAAW has had this problem for many years; and, indeed, it existed before then. There is no question of bullying, of coercion or of threats to the Government or anyone else. The case has been argued sincerely, and quite properly, on humanitarian grounds. I think all decent men and women will support that case and will find some way to deal with this problem of the tied cottage.
Viscount GAGE: I am not only a farmer, but I have had a long experience in local government. In a sense, I hate this Amendment because it destroys the discretion of a district council; it interferes with their plans, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said. Yet I feel I must support it because I really cannot think of any other way to deal with this matter. I think one of the troubles is that in certain parts of the country—in East Anglia, strictly—I am told there is no problem; the local authority is not
600
going to have a great burden on them. But in other parts of the country it is not true. In the South-East it is not true. That is why there is so much concern being shown, not only by the NFU but also by the chartered surveyors and, not least, by the District Councils Association.
My noble friend below me read out part of the District Councils Association's report. I read out another part of it on a previous occasion, and I think it is fairly explicit. It said:
"It is feared that housing authorities will be left in the intolerable position that, having accepted the validity of an application for re-housing in respect of a tenant of tied agricultural accommodation, it will be unable to provide alternative accommodation because of central Government restrictions on expenditure".
That is what they have said, and really it is not much use the noble Lord, Lord Collison, saying that they have exaggerated it and it will not be so bad. These people are not Party politicians, and that is what they say. I read this before, and the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said he would deal with this question. I am wondering whether he is going to promise any money to meet the district councils' request. If he does, I agree it would make some sense. Otherwise, I should not regard it as a very honest Bill on the part of the Government.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I gave notice to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, of the questions I am now going to ask him; so, knowing what a helpful man he is, I am sure he has the answers for me. Can the noble Lord tell us how many local authorities will have difficulty implementing "best endeavours", and their rough geographical location? Also, when he answers can he indicate whether there will be differences in the case of urban councils with big industrial populations, like Birmingham and London, with a small amount of agriculture on their outskirts? I have in fact heard of a farm which is beginning to have a problem on exactly this point which is within the GLC area. For instance, what will be the difference between, as my noble friend Lord Gage has said, the authority in East Anglia, and the other type of local authority, perhaps one of the sort under whose aegis I live, largely residential with a certain amount of industry and a certain amount of agriculture? What will be the differences in their attitudes. Above all, what will be the percentage of appli-

601
cants of whom ADHAC says it is in the interest of efficient agriculture to rehouse? How many are not going to be able to be rehoused? If all will be able to be rehoused, that is, I suppose, not too bad. If, however, there is to be quite a large number not rehoused, the consequences are terrifying. It will mean that agricultural production must inevitably fall. That will mean increases in prices to the housewife, and increases in the import bill—and we are in a state of really acute and chronic economic crisis such as has not been seen probably since the great days of Roman inflation under Diocletian. It would seem to me that we do not want to do anything which will make the situation any worse. I am sure that if we do not get this right the effect on food production will be disastrous.
There is one other thing. This is really a possible compromise between what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has suggested and what noble Lords opposite want to do. Would it be possible to leave in the words "best endeavours" and then to say that it will become obligatory on order of the Secretary of State when he feels it is possible to make it obligatory? I understand the difficulties over the clash of interests of the two sets of people. That is the idea which is floating, but I presume will receive no support from either side.
Lord WOLVERTON: I am not a farmer but I have had a good deal of experience in this House on housing debates and have also served on a local authority county council for nine years. I feel that these words are not strong enough. Living in East Anglia, as I do, I know of cases which had to go to court over possession orders. The local authorities do not take much notice unless there is a possession order, as my noble friend Lord Caithness has told us today. Once there is an order of the court, they may have to jump the queue. It is not nice to have to jump the queue; but can assure your Lordships that in many areas in East Anglia the housing lists are very long and will get longer because, owing to the economic crisis of this country, they have to cut down considerably on their housing programmes.
I feel that agriculture is so important to this country, especially with the economic crisis—and the price of food is bound to go up with the weakening of the pound
602
against the dollar—that we ought to have something stronger than the words "their best endeavours". I do not think that will work. I support my noble friends on the Front Benches and the Liberal Benches in what they are trying to do.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I think we must remember that agriculture is the most efficient industry in this country, increasing its productivity 12 per cent. every year. I should like to go further and see a time limit set for the local authorities to provide housing for agricultural workers who have retired or who no longer can be employed on the farm.
In the present economic Position of this country we cannot afford to let our most efficient industry go down. I have been a farmer all my life, arable and stock, and I feel this matter is most important. I wonder whether noble Lords opposite understand how important it is. If you do away with tied cottages you must put something effective in their place. The Bill as at present drafted is not effective enough to put something in their place. For instance, how many houses a year will the local authority need to have? How much housing will they have to find? We know the number of tied cottages in agriculture is 70,000. Surely the local authorities will not be called upon to provide more than 5,000. I do not know the figure, but that is not impossible over the whole country. It seems a very small number. I understand from 350,000 to 400,000 new council dwellings are built every year. That does not seem insufferable.
I heartily support the Amendment. I should like a time limit of six months put on an authority. What happens to a farmer if his shepherd retires or leaves just before lambing? If he is a small farmer he is in a serious predicament. I hope the Government will give this earnest consideration and put all the pressure they can on local authorities to re-house agricultural workers who have retired or, for some other reason, cannot work on the farm.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I have already spoken in part to this Amendment. I ask the Government, whet is the difference in interpretation between the words "best endeavours" and the words "shall take such steps as may he reasonable", or the words "shall make provision

603
in so far as it is in the circumstances both practicable and reasonable"? The last two duties were laid on local authorities in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. I would further ask the Government whether they are satisfied with the result of that Act in this connection, and whether the local authorities have carried out their duties sufficiently well to convince the Government that "best endeavours" will suffice here.
Lord CONGLETON: I hope that my words may be of some help to the Committee. I have sat with something approaching despair through three sessions of your Lordships' Committee on this matter. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that this Bill is a messy one. My dilemma is compounded because on my left-hand side I have a sheaf of papers from the National Farmers' Union, of which I have been a member for the 19 years that I have been a farmer, and on my right-hand side I have a sheaf of papers from the Association of District Councils, of which I have the honour to be a Vice-President, which reflects upon 10 years' membership of a local authority, although I am no longer a member. I sat for those 10 years on the housing management committee in a rural area.
I do not wish to imply that either I or any other members on that committee were invested with special gifts of wisdom, understanding, or anything of that nature. But month after month we had before us applications for council houses. The composition of the housing management committee was such that there were groups of members who favoured housing the elderly or infirm and others who favoured applications from young recently married people, waiting for a house. There were those who favoured applications from those where the sanitation in their existing dwellings was unsatisfactory, and so on. The members of that Com-mittee—and I am sure we were not so different from other committees up and down the country—were extremely partial and we got to know each other pretty well. On the whole we took a view about this or that sort of application.
Having said that, I should also say that when it came to a resolution as to which applicant should be considered successful, the corporate expression of opinion from that committee was totally impartial.
604
It was also expert. It was impartial in expressing as a unity many differences of opinion about the applications, and it was expert because those who comprised the committee knew the area with which they were dealing extremely well, had known it for many years, knew those whose applications could be treated with a certain amount of suspicion, and so on.
What the Amendment of the noble Earl is asking Parliament to do is to discriminate in favour of the dispossessed agricultural worker. I well understand the reasons for that. As I have said, I agree with the noble Earl that the Bill is a mess and what has happened is that the Government, in proceeding with it, by its provisions has upset the balance of housing in the rural areas. Other noble Lords have said this and I absolutely agree with it. The Amendment, in singling out the dispossessed agricultural worker as meriting a particular preferential treatment, means that obviously there will be an upset in the balance of the rural housing situation which is already difficult enough.
This morning I was speaking to the district council which administers the area in which I live. They told me that they had a stock of 8,000 houses and 2,400 on the waiting list. Of those 2,400, my informant felt that 1,600 or 1,700 in an ideal situation should be housed tomorrow, as they were of high priority. I was also told that in the last twelve months that authority had re-housed 107 cases arising out of possession orders. The interesting thing here was that out of those 107 possession order cases there were 25 pertaining to agricultural tied cottages; there were 30 (and this is a special area) concerned with rehousing dispossessed Service families—there is a big military establishment in that area and these people are housed in tied accommodation—and the balance of the dispossession orders, 52 of them, were normal civil actions taken by landlords against tenants.
What that means is that there are other pebbles on the local authority housing beach, not simply agricultural workers. As I say, I am a farmer and have been farming for 18 years and I understand the problems, but with the best will in the world I cannot bring myself to support a motion which would mean discrimination in favour of one section of the community so far as

605
housing is concerned—that is to say, the agricultural workers—and discrimination against other deserving cases. That I am afraid is what this Amendment must mean. I hope I have explained in principle that I am not in sympathy with the Bill, but here it is, there is a dilemma, and I hope that your Lordships will resolve it with your usual wisdom.
Viscount GAGE: May I ask the noble Lord one thing? I, like him, am a member of a local authority and I also said I disliked the provisions of this Amendment so far as it gave directions to local authorities, but I do ask what is his solution as a farmer? Has he got one?
Lord CONGLETON: I have not put one forward. I said in my closing remarks that I hoped your Lordships would be able to find a solution—if not at this stage perhaps at the next stage of the Bill.
11.15 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: I listened with close attention to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, and I may be able to comfort him. I am no lawyer but I feel that the matter before us is of great importance. Perhaps I may therefore be permitted to quote from the case of Bristol Corporation which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Middleton. This is a significant case so far as this Amendment is concerned, because we are looking at something which is very close to the wording of Section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. My noble friend Lord Middleton referred to the judgment in the Bristol Corporation case. I should like to quote from Lord Justice Scarman's judgment because I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, may draw some encouragement from it. Lord Justice Scarman said:
"I cannot see that Parliament intended to place upon local authorities a duty that in some circum-stances might be impossible to discharge".
In this case the words of Section 39 from the 1973 Act which are relevant are:
"… it shall be the duty of the relevant authority to secure that he will be provided with such other accommodation".
I think your Lordships will agree that those are very similar words to the words of the Amendment.
Lord Justice Scarman went on to make a very significant point so far as the question of mandamus is concerned. Perhaps I may be permitted to put it on
606
the Record, as I think it would be worth while. Lord Justice Scarman said:
"I am satisfied that mandamus ought not to issue. In my judgment, if, in a situation such as this"—
that was the Bristol Corporation case—
"there is evidence that a local authority is doing all it honestly and honourably can to meet the statutory obligation, and that its failure, if there be a failure, to meet that obligation arises really out of circumstances over which it has no control, then I think that it would be improper for the court to make an order of mandamus compelling it to do that which either it cannot do or which it can only do at the expense of other persons not before the court who may have equal rights with the applicants and some of whom would certainly have equal moral claims. For those reasons I would think that in its discretion the court ought not to make an order of mandamus".
That, to me, clinches and justifies the words of the Amendment. I believe that the phrase "best endeavours" is unsatisfactory. The circumstances in which this phrase has been concerned with cases over the past 100 years have not been entirely similar; largely they have been commercial cases. The first was Moore v. Robinson over a beer house in 1878. It does not seem to me that the words which the Government seek to import into the Bill would be entirely satisfactory.
Lord PEART: This has been an interesting but very important. debate. Obviously noble Lords on all sides of the Committee hold different attitudes towards the Amendments. We are considering five separate Amendments—two from the Liberals and three from the Conservatives—on the same topic; namely, the nature of the duty placed by the Bill on local authorities and the way in which this duty is to be discharged. As I said earlier, this is the main part of the Bill and I can understand why noble Lords are spending more time debating it than some of the other Amendments. I agree that they have argued constructively and, I would say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, quite differently from the spirit of action which led us to take out the dairy industry and forestry, which really has affected the Bill considerably. However, I think this is an important Part and it may well be that noble Lords will not press their Amendments tonight.
I accept that there are difficult decisions here, and the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, quite rightly raised the question of the Bristol case. That was the case of Regina v. Bristol Corporation in the Court of Appeal, which dealt with rehousing duty in

607
Section 39 of the Land Compensation Act 1973. There, the relevant words used were:
"It shall be the duty of the relevant authority to secure that he will be provided with such other accommodation".
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said:
"I think that the local authority fulfil their duty when they do their best as soon as practicable to get him other accommodation".
I want to deploy arguments on this. I ought first to deal with two of these Amendments: No. 64 standing in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and No. 65 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. These Amendments, though differently worded, touch on a point in the Bill which has generated considerable discussion: the force underlying the rehousing obligation to be placed on local housing authorities. As the movers see it, they share the common aim of substituting a straight obligation for the phrase "use their best endeavours". Neither of the Amendments would in all probability have the effect that the movers might suppose. As Case Law has underlined, a local authority cannot do better than its best and cannot do more than its utmost. Given that fact I cannot see that the deletion of the phrase "use their best endeavours" would significantly alter the nature of the proposed duty, but to insert the straight obligation which reads as if it were stronger is not, I think, a course to be recommended. I see every advantage in a Statute's saying what it means and meaning what it says rather than being amended so as to appear to say something different.
I will now turn to the third of the Amendments, No. 66, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Swaythling, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, and the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley. This strikes me as a rather illiberal Amendment, both in the normally understood sense of that word and in relation to what I understand to have been up to now Liberal policy in another place on this Bill. As noble Lords who are Liberals will appreciate, their spokesman in another place supported the Bill with great vigour, and he was a farmer of considerable influence and distinction. It suggests that in every case where a farmer's application meets
608
the criteria set out in Clause 29, including an assessment from an ADHAC that agricultural need exists, the local authority should be under an obligation to rehouse within three months. I must point out that this Amendment fails to take any account whatsoever of the fact that there are bound to be varying degrees of urgency in the cases that come before local authorities. It can hardly be defensible to claim that all such cases should merit that kind of priority over other claims on local authorities, irrespective of whether needs are urgent or somewhat remoter in time.
I think it would be misleading to suggest that, because the Liberal Amendment on time limits is so unwelcome, we are in any way favourably disposed towards the Conservative Amendment. The application of time limits to urgent cases only, which is suggested in Amendment No. 69, in my view would be unacceptable in principle. There would be two risks for farmers themselves if we were to write time limits into the Statute. The maximum which the law lays down tends to become the norm, and that risk can well work against speedy processing of the most urgent cases. Time limits could make for added delay in cases where there was no urgency and where the application fell to be dealt with outside the specified period. These points apart, the compelling case against time limits is, first, they have no practical value when local authorities, as in the Bill, are enjoined to do their utmost anyway, and secondly, if another claimant has to be displaced so the local authority can meet a dateline set by Statute, that would be precisely the distortion of local housing decisions we aim to avoid.
Finally, let me turn to Amendment No. 67 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. I think its main effect would be to prevent local authorities from looking at the claims of other people in the council housing queue while they dealt first of all with applications from farmers on behalf of their workers and ex-workers. I make no bones about the thinking behind the Amendment, hut it is not really acceptable to the Government, nor, I venture to suggest, to local government. After all, authorities are supposed to look after the needs of the whole of their area, not just one section of it.

609
I was grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Congleton, said in a very constructive speech, as he has been not only a member of the National Farmers' Union but also one who has served for a long period on a local authority. His speech answered some of the points raised in an earlier debate. We must expect local authorities to act responsibly, and also individuals, and they do. There may be the odd case where something goes wrong, but generally speaking, looking at local government—and as Professor Jenks once said, "We are fundamentally a country of local government"—local authorities do act sensibly, and we must recognise this. They cannot he discriminated against in a Statute. I think this is appreciated by most noble Lords.
The Amendment would undermine the principle that local authorities should look after the needs of the whole of their area by giving automatic priority to agricultural workers and ex-workers. This was a point specially stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Congleton. I do not want to overstate the number of cases where in practice a clash between, say, an application based on agricultural need and one, say, where an overcrowded family required rehousing, could arise for the last available house in a local authority area for months to come. But as a matter of natural justice towards all those seeking a council house, the decision on allocation of council housing ought to remain with those who have been elected for that purpose and who already have accumulated expertise in this field. I recognise the importance noble Lords opposite attach to the Amendments, but taken together, they will not help local authorities whose co-operation will so greatly facilitate the operation of this Bill, and I do not think they would achieve the results for the farming community that their movers may expect.
Noble Lords asked me to look into one or two matters apart from some of the points I have already dealt with. May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that I looked into the question of statistics, and find it is not possible really to find the numbers of local authorities in the categories he is thinking about, the sort of authorities near urban areas. He mentioned also the differences between local authorities, and asked me about the Greater London Council. I dealt
610
with this point on another Amendment when talking about the Scilly Isles. They do have farms. I cannot say that they will act differently from other authorities. I hope they will act as reasonable men, democratically elected to fulfil a public duty. I think they will continue to do so.
Arguments are deployed about the economic crisis and the difficulties we are in. There will inevitably he constraints perhaps on expenditure; one cannot say precisely. In the case of a service cottage problem, it will be the ADHACs which will give the necessary agricultural advice, and I think these committees will be especially important. There will be a farmers' representative, as there will be an agricultural workers' representative, acting under an impartial chairman. In the circumstances, while I am still to be convinced that some of these Amendments will really work properly, as always I am prepared to look at maters again before Report stage. We said that on a previous Amendment. We are prepared to consider it. But I hope noble Lords will not press these Amendments. After all, there are great differences.
11.31 p.m.
Viscount GAGE: Has the noble Lord anything to say to the District Councils Association?
Lord PEART: The Association have had a statement made to them by the Minister concerned, and I have quoted it in the Committee. They are responsible people. They have their burdens; of course, I accept this. Of course, on the question of rehousing, without proper finance, there will be serious problems. But they have been consulted carefully.
Lord SWAYTHLING: I had already said that we were not moving No. 66. I should also like to ask the noble Lord if he is able to answer the question about the use of caravans without planning permission, because whether or not this Amendment goes into the Bill I think it is essential to have some method by which the new employee can be rapidly housed.
Lord PEART: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was going to deal with the suggestion that farmers, or indeed anyone else for that matter, should be granted automatic planning permission. This has been mooted. I do rot think this is something the Government could

611
accept. In individual cases it is conceivable that there could be an argument for a caravan to be used to house an incoming worker. But if a farmer believes this to be the case, there is no reason why he should not follow the same procedures as any other citizen and seek planning permission from the local authority. There is nothing to prevent him from going ahead and seeking planning permission for a caravan in advance on a contingency basis. But there can be no justification for dispensing with the requirement that permission should be sought from the local planning authority.
The Earl of CAITHNESS: I note that the noble Lord did not reply to any of the questions that I posed. Is this because the Minister with responsibility for the disabled has stated freely and in public that some local authorities have taken their obligations seriously and some have not? This is exactly why we on this side of the Committee are worried.
Lord PEART: I am sorry if I did not reply to every point. I did make a note, but I cannot find it. The noble Earl will understand. I will look at these questions and will write to him.
The Earl of ONSLOW: I am sorry to come back at the noble Lord. I thank him for making the effort to discover those statistics. I thought he was going to have great difficulty in finding them. He did not answer one question which seems to me totally fundamental to this Bill; that is, how many people throughout England and Wales does he expect not to be rehoused whom ADHACs have said are occupying houses which are necessary for the efficient use of agriculture? I should have thought his advisers must have had to look at this. Just as a passing note, Lord Congleton destroyed the Bill with his last speech.
Lord PEART: I am afraid I have not got that figure. I think it would be difficult to get. But again I will take note of that.
Earl FERRERS: I have a lot of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Peart. I think he is in a cul-de-sac. He has the most impossible task because here he has tried to say that the decision for rehousing should remain with those who are elected
612
to carry out that duty. That is a commendable thought, but I suggest that it goes completely against what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said. I am bound to remind the noble Lord that she said:
"This is the first time that in an Act of Parliament, as I hope it will he, a statutory duty has been put upon local authorities to rehouse any group."
That is a totally different thing, and in saying that the noble Baroness made it clear that this is an obligation on the local authority. The noble Lord has to try then to defend the words "best endeavours", which puts no obligation on the local authority other than to use their best endeavours.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, said that a Statute should say what it means. I think that the words we have put forward are infinitely clearer because it puts a duty, such as the noble Baroness said that the Bill does, on to the local authority. I do not profess for one minute to say that this Amendment is perfect—I do not think that the other Amendments we shall come to later, to which I briefly referred, are necessarily perfect—but it is an attempt to reconcile this terrible problem which the Government have by this Bill brought upon themselves, because they have brought two totally irreconcilable objectives into head-on conflict. The first is the need to put an obligation on to the local authorities to make the wretched thing work, and the second is the natural objection to putting any obligation on to a local authority. If you have those two requirements they are bound to be in conflict. This is precisely what happens when you pluck one thing out and pursue it headlong, regardless of all other considerations.
The noble Lord, Lord Congleton, referred quite reasonably to a pile of papers he had on one side from the National Farmers' Union, and another pile of papers on the other side from the District Councils Association. I assume that they were in conflict, and I am not surprised because this is the dilemma which this stupid Bill has brought us to. The two things are in conflict. I find it difficult when the Government produce a highly controversial Bill—and let us make no bones about it, it is—and we on this side express our genuine fears, that we are told by the Government, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Collison, "It is perfectly all right. Don't worry. We are sure it will work all right." It is

613
like being hosed with foam: you cannot get at it.
I do not believe that this Bill will be all right. These two words "best endeavours" have been a real fear in the whole of the agricultural industry because they can see this as being an inadequate assurance that the local authority will rehouse. I do not believe that it is good enough, in passing an Act of Parliament, to sit back and say, "It is quite all right. I am sure the local authorities will be all right. They are very good and responsible people". Of course they are, but they have other obligations to take into account; but if the effectiveness of agriculture is to go ahead they must have a duty on them to house these people, more than just an obligation to use their best endeavours. That is the reason why I am bound to ask my noble friends to come into the Lobby and support me on this. If the noble Lord, Lord Peart, is prepared between now and the next stage of the Bill, to think of different words which we could use, I would be quite happy to see these words taken out at the Report stage and replaced with something else. As I see it, the noble Lord is in a real difficulty to find other words. If he says he is prepared to look at the matter between now and Report I shall be happy to help him. Otherwise I am bound to ask my noble friends to divide on the Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: Before the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, does that, I should like to clear up a point. He indicated, having quoted what I said on Second Reading, that there was a complete difference in approach between us, but I do not think that is so. Indeed, having discussed the use of this phrase, I do not think he is as far from our view as he imagines he is, or says he is. We have sought to impose a duty which will ensure that the genuine needs of farmers are met, but without removing the local authority's responsibility for final decisions on housing allocation. We are, therefore, trying to take the two aspects into account together and, in doing this, the phrase "use their best endeavours" means exactly what it
614
says: that local authorities muse do their utmost, within the constraints which are familiar enough to both officers and members of local authorities who are concerned with local housing management. Balancing this and using duty in this sense runs through the Bill.
Listening to noble Lords speaking, on the farming side and the local authority side, as it were, it seems clear—and there has been quite a difference of opinion among noble Lords opposite—that no better phrase could be used. The words "duty" and "obligation" have been thrown into the air, but in the end we come back to "best endeavour;" being the best way to get round this problem. I assure the Committee that t is not through lack of trying. This matter was gone into in the other place and my noble friend and I have spent much time among ourselves discussing it, a id, without going over all the arguments which my noble friend so ably adduced, "best endeavours" seems the best phrase to use and the duty that is imposed is contained in those words. There is nothing contradictory about it.
Earl FERRERS: I am sure that the noble Baroness has used her best endeavours to improve on the phrase "best endeavours", but we are really getting into the realms of semantics. She says that the duty being imposed on local authorities emerges in the words "best endeavours"—
Baroness BIRK: So it does.
Earl FERRERS:—but I should like it to be very much clearer. I am bound, therefore, to advise my noble friends to divide on the Amendment.
11.43 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 64) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 64; Non-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Balerno, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

St. Just, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Henley, L.

Salisbury, M.

Belstead, L.

Hives, L.

Sandford, L.

Blakenham, V.

Long, V.

Sandys, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Lyell, L.

Savile, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Margadale, L.

Seear, B.

Burnham, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Selkirk, E.

Caithness, E.

Middleton, L.

Sharples, B.

Carrington, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Cathcart, E.

Monson, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Morris, L.

Suffield, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Mottistone, L.

Swaythling, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Mountgarret, V.

Terrington, L.

Devonshire, D.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Tranmire, L.

Digby, L.

Newall, L.

Westbury, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Wise, L.

Elles, B.

Onslow, E.

Wolverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Pender, L.

Yarborough, E.

Elton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Young, B.

Ferrers, E.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Gage, V.

Rochdale, V.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brown, L.

Kaldor, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

Morris of Kenwood, L.

White, B.

Gardiner, L.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gregson, L.

Parry, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.51 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Henley): As Amendment No. 64 has been agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 65.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 24, line 12, leave out from ("accommodation") to end of line 16.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 64. I beg to move.
Lord STRABOLGI: This may be a convenient moment to halt the Committee stage. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

INSOLVENCY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee (on recommitment) with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.