Lords Sitting of 15 July 1977

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield

KINSHASA: BRITISH CALEDONIAN AIR SERVICE
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the ending this month by British Caledonian Airways of its regular service to Kinshasa, Zaire.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I understand that British Caledonian Airways has been unable to remit any funds from Zaire to the United Kingdom since its service to Kinshasa started in July 1975. British Caledonian Airways and a number of other international airlines similarly affected have made representations to the Zairian authorities, so far without success. As a result, British Caledonian Airways has made a commercial decision to cease serving Kinshasa from 28th July.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask him to bear in mind that President Mobutu announced on 30th June that there would be a total reform of the whole structure of government? Would he also bear in mind that there is a General Agreement on Co-operation, including economic co-operation, between our two countries? In view of the fact that there are to be sweeping changes within Zaire, would Her Majesty's Government do all in their power to assist British Caledonian to delay withdrawal of its service pending the outcome of the changes that have been announced by President Mobutu?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Department has been in close touch with British Caledonian on this matter and has made
1102
representations in Zaire; Her Majesty's Ambassador did make representations on the matter. These representations are continuing. Certainly we shall bear in mind the factors which the noble Lord mentioned, and if further opportunities were to arise as a result of the changes he anticipates, we would continue to be as helpful as we can.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Would he also bear in mind that, in effect, the only other francophone African country to which British Caledonian operates is Senegal, because, unfortunately, the service to the Ivory Coast has not started yet? Therefore, if Her Majesty's Government can assist British Caledonian, financially or otherwise, to delay this decision, would not the noble Lord agree that it might be beneficial for all those who wished to go to that part of the world?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, of course, the decision is a commercial one which has to be reached by the airline itself. Those additional comments from the noble Lord will certainly be borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government in continuing to help the airline in any way that it appreciates.

BELIZE: WASHINGTON TALKS
11.8 a.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement about the talks in Washington on the future of Belize.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I will, with permission, circulate a copy of the agreed joint communiqué in the Official Report. The Joint Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs hopes to visit Guatemala City next week to continue his discussions.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, no doubt noble Lords will be grateful to my noble friend and to my honourable friend for the efforts that are being made. Can my noble friend say whether one of the matters under consideration has been the possibility of additional access by Guatemala through Belize, perhaps under some form of international guarantee or control? Could he also confirm that it is being kept firmly at the forefront of the minds of the negotiators that, at the last two Sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Resolutions were passed overwhelmingly endorsing the Belizeans' right to determine their own future and their independence, particularly on the basis of their territorial integrity?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we have offered co-operation and consultation between Guatemala and an independent Belize in the fields of defence, security, foreign and economic affairs, joint economic developments to which the United Kingdom might contribute financially and a new seaward boundary which would provide Guatemala with guaranteed and permanent access to the Caribbean. These proposals have been made with the agreement of the Belize Government.
As to the support of the international authority and other international bodies for independence for Belize on the basis that the United Kingdom has consistently put forward, I am glad to confirm what my noble friend has said. Indeed, in 1975 and 1976, the United Nations General Assembly, by referral from the Fourth Committee, adopted by large majorities Resolutions in favour of independence for Belize very much on the basis of what we have consistently put forward. In fact, the figures in 1975 were 110 votes in favour, nine against, 16 abstentions; in 1976, there were 116 votes in favour, nine against and 15 abstentions. I think that it is apposite also to add that both the non-aligned conferences, at their meetings in Colombo and two years ago in Kingston, similarly expressed support for the Belizean view and our view. The Commonwealth, of course, is in accord with our proposals and our manner of approaching this question, as, indeed, are a large number of other countries which could not
1104
immediately be identified with any of those organisations.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord be kind enough to consider whether we could not get a treaty with Guatemala, rather than having these episodes occurring every two or three years? That would be better than offering them aid and so on. It would give us a permanent treaty so that we should know how we stood in the future. I am certain that it would be helpful to the inhabitants of Belize.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not rule out that modus. Our aim is to advance Belize to independence on the basis of regional acquiescence and co-operation. No doubt the discussions next week and subsequently will consider whether this can best be done by negotiation involving a treaty.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is it not correct that in recent years the presence, with the agreement of the people of Belize, of one battalion of British troops in Belize has contributed to keeping good order, peace and stability in this difficult situation?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that events have proved the truth of the noble Lord's contention. We approached this matter on the basis of our obligation to provide adequate defence for a country which is under our protection and which we are anxious, by agreement, to advance to independence in due course. We shall continue to honour our obligations to Belize.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is not what is really depressing about the whole of this scenario the fact that, 32 years after the United Nations Charter—which outlawed war as an instrument of national policy—one nation after another in Southern Africa, the Middle East and now Central America is apparantly willing to adopt war as a viable option of national policy? Is not that the really depressing fact?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is indeed depressing, but for every depression there may be an equal and positive encouragement. Thirty-two years have passed during which there have

1105
been these disturbances and threats in various parts of the world; and 32 years have passed without a major disturbance of the peace of the world.
Following is the joint communiqué referred to:

"1. Representatives of the Governments of Guatemala and of the United Kingdom met in Washington on 6th/7th July in a third round of negotiations at Ministerial level to discuss the question of Belize. The Guatemalan side was led by Dr. Adolfo Molina Orantes, Foreign Minister of Guatemala. The British side was led by Mr. Ted Rowlands MP, Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The British delegation included the Hon. George Price, Premier of Belize and an all-Party delegation.

"2. There was a detailed discussion of the means by which the controversy over the future of Belize might be solved peacefully and harmoniously, taking into account the interests of all parties. In the course of these discussions both sides put forward proposals for resolving the question. It was agreed that the proposals submitted would be the subject of the most careful study in order to pursue the negotiations to a peaceful solution acceptable to all parties.

"3. Among other matters the British side explained the procedures that have been followed to bring dependent territories to independence, pointing out that such procedures inevitably took time and were always public and were never secret. There could not therefore be any sudden move to independence for Belize.

"4. It was also agreed that the British Minister would visit Guatemala as soon as possible in order to discuss the means of reducing tension and the next stages in the negotiations. Thereafter a date for the next meeting will be decided."

HOVERCRAFT: FUTURE POLICY
11.15 a.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how soon they will announce a decision to place an order for hovercraft to be used as countermeasures against mines, following the long and exhaustive evaluation trials.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are still considering our future policy for the use of hovercraft in this role in the light of trials experience and of the other factors involved. I cannot therefore say when a decision on ordering these craft will be taken.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Although he realises that these evaluation tests have been taking place for over three years, and although I accept the general expenditure restrictions, can he say whether the Royal Navy sees this as a potential role for hovercraft? Can he say whether the capital cost would be a great deal less expensive than the more conventional minesweeper? Furthermore, can he say whether the hovercraft is known to have an advantage with regard to underwater explosions in so far as it may be less susceptible to them?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer the last point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, but quite clearly this form of vehicle has potential. For that reason the studies are continuing. The work will continue until 1979–80 when the total evaluation will be complete. All I can say at this stage is that there is potential, but the total potential as offset against the problems which arise from using this aircraft has not yet been evaluated.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, could not the noble Lord go a little further and comment on the future of the Inter-Service Trials Unit at Lee-on-Solent? Of course, concern is felt by industry with regard to employment that it will not be abandoned in the next two years. Secondly, could the noble Lord indicate whether the French industry now has a competitive hovercraft?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Inter-Service Hovercraft Unit operated for 12 years and was disbanded, but the Royal Navy has carried on with the experimental work because there is potential in this area. But that potential has yet to be evaluated. Unfortunately, I cannot report on the French position.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the evaluation will be completed in two years. Can he say when it started and how long the whole process will take?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords; the actual experimental work has now been going on for some 14 years over the whole range of use of hovercraft

1107
for military purposes. That may seem a long time, but one cannot expect immediate answers with an entirely new technique.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, as this form of transportation is in regular service for the public across the Channel, and has been for a number of years, may I express the hope that the noble Lord will not feel that the House will regard it as precipitous if he reaches a conclusion before two years have elapsed?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, to take trippers across the Channel is one thing; to take the craft to a hostile coast is another.

WASTE PAPER: FOREIGN PULP IMPORTS
11.18 a.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 whether they have taken steps to help local authorities to organise paper collections in order to reduce United Kingdom expenditure on imports of foreign pulp.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, we have circulated advice to local authorities on the collection of waste paper. The need for further measures is being examined by the Waste Management Advisory Council. It is, however, primarily for the paper industry to work out satisfactory arrangements with local authorities, as they do with other collectors.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which is slightly encouraging. I should like to ask her two questions. First, has it been thought at all possible to contact the Women's Institute and the WRVS about helping in this matter? I was a member of the latter body during the War and know what good work it did.
1108
Secondly, could not airports with abandoned aircraft hangars be loaned to local authorities for storage. One of the problems in this matter is the question of storage when there is a surplus.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, we have recently produced Guide to the Voluntary Waste Collection, which would cover the point of advice which is given both to Women's Institutes and other organisations. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, because in this field the work of the voluntary organisations is often more effective as they can be very much more flexible than local authorities which must have regard to expense and collections. So far as storing the paper is concerned, the Government have considered this carefully. One of the problems is the cost of financing this scheme because there are the downturns and the upturns—it all changes so rapidly—and there would be a real danger that the stocks would not have been cleared between one downturn and another, and the last thing we want is to add to our other mountains by having a paper mountain.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that in recent years quite a number of local authorities have withdrawn facilities for the separate collection of household waste paper? Might I ask whether or not this has been influenced by the fact that the price of waste paper has substantially fallen over recent years?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, I am sure that this is so. The local authorities often find it quite uneconomic to do this. But there are joint schemes which are now being developed to which we attach great importance. One is at Croydon where the merchants provide the extra equipment needed and the local authority has only to meet the cost of the extra labour. There is a future in this sort of arrangement.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, having regard to what was done during the War in this very important matter, can any general figures be provided so that we might look at the financial situation, which of course is so important at the present time?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, if I can find any figures that are relevant, perhaps I could write and send them to the noble Baroness.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, while I have no connection with the Women's Institute, may I ask my noble friend this question: Is it not a fact that some local authorities are completely uninterested or too idle to undertake waste paper collection? Secondly, is it not a fact that many authorities which have entered into contracts with the mills have found at certain times that the mills are over-stocked with waste paper, so that the mills have had to say to the local authority, "Please do not send us any more"? Is it not a fact also that the mills do not like the idea of carrying so much capital locked up in fields and sheds full of waste paper? Is not the real remedy for this for capital to be made available so that this surplus to requirements of waste paper can be stored in the mills without any additional cost to the firms?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, to the first three questions my noble friend asked I think the answer is, in different degrees, Yes. On his last point, about making capital available, one comes back to the same point that I made to the noble Baroness: there is a limit to the amount of stockpiling one can do. I would again emphasise that the Government have spent £23 million on helping to produce the machinery for using waste paper and turning it into a better quality paper pulp. This really is one of the solutions.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, could the noble Baroness say whether the Government have in fact considered the suggestion advanced by my noble friend Lady Emmet, that we should use disused hangars on disused airfields as a stopgap in looking after the problem of storage? If they have not considered it so far, would they be prepared to do so in the future?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I thought that I answered that point by saying that it was not just a question of finding the places to store but the building up of such an enormous amount of paper which was not then going to be used. I think I referred to a paper mountain.
1110
All these things have been looked at. The matter is not only one of growing concern, but one that is being considered all the time.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that this is a problem best dealt with at source by not unnecessarily distributing printed material in vast quantities around the country, most of which goes into the waste-paper basket without even being opened?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, would agree.

COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
11.25 a.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement on Counter-Inflation Policy being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the further measures which the Government propose to take in the fight against inflation and unemployment in the light of discussions they have held with representatives of the TUC and of the revised prospects for the economy. The Government continue to regard the mastery of inflation as the pre-condition for success in returning to full employment.
"In the last two years the nation has derived immense advantages from the guidelines on pay which the TUC has formulated in agreement with the Government. These guidelines have been fully observed by the whole of the trade union movement and have given invaluable help in the fight against inflation.
"The Government and TUC have recognised that the period after July 1977 must bring an orderly return to normal collective bargaining and that there must be no free-for-all or pay explosion.
"On 22nd June the TUC General Council made a major contribution towards these objectives by publishing

1111
guidance on the strict maintenance of settlements made under the current policy. The General Council said that negotiators should not re-open settlements made under the current policy after 31st July in breach of the 12 months rule; and should not defer settlements due before 31st July in the hope of securing an advantage by doing so. The only exceptions to the 12 months rule relate to occupational pensions and self-financing productivity schemes. The Government attach the greatest importance to this guidance by the TUC. Provided it is observed by all those concerned with pay determination in both the private and public sectors, it will go far to prevent a wage explosion from developing after July 1977. It is the keystone for an orderly return to collective bargaining. It means that the Phase 2 policy will continue to affect the level of the nation's earnings until the last settlement made under it expires at the end of July 1978.
"The effect is to facilitate a phased return to normal collective bargaining. For most people the next settlement will not come until the first half of 1978. By that time there is a good chance that, thanks to the strict adherence to the TUC pay policy in the past year, the rate of inflation will be approaching, or will have reached, that of our major competitors. That will provide a better climate for settlements, which can be reinforced by any assistance which the Government are able to give.
"Earnings: The TUC do not think it practicable for them to give general guidance on the level of pay settlements in the next round when the 12 months has expired for the bargaining group concerned. Since the Government have a responsibility for the economy as a whole for and the management of the public sector, they have a duty to the British people to state their position on this matter.
"The country now faces a choice which will determine whether by getting a sustained fall in the rate of inflation we can profit fully from the new opportunities opened up for us by the success of our other policies and the flow of North Sea oil. Many factors may affect the rate of inflation. Some of these are now turning in our favour.
1112
On the best forecasts now available of the factors which may contribute to inflation, the prospect for prices in 1978 and after will depend critically on the rate of increase in the nation's wage bill. To take three examples by way of illustration:
"first, if the rate of increase in earnings is not more than 10 per cent., inflation should fall below 10 per cent. well before this time next year and stay there throughout the year;
"second, if the rate of increase in earnings is as high as 15 per cent., we would not get inflation down to 10 per cent. at all, and it would be rising steadily through the second half of next year and into 1979;
"third, if the rate of increase in earnings were as high as 20 per cent. prices would soar and we would be back in the situation we faced just over two years ago.
"Any given rate of earnings increase implies a significantly lower rate of increase in settlements. The rate of increase in earnings takes account of overtime, job changes and other factors which contribute to what is called wage drift. The House will recall that the £6 policy, representing an average increase in wage settlements of nearly 11 per cent., produced an increase in earnings for the year of 14 per cent.
"Faced with a choice of the kind illustrated by the examples I have described, the Government have a clear duty to urge all concerned to base their approach to pay negotiations on getting inflation into single figures. They must therefore urge that the general level of pay settlements should be moderate enough to secure that the national earnings increase is no more than 10 per cent.
"In a period which must mark an orderly return to normal collective bargaining, the Government agree with the TUC that it is not possible to stipulate a specific figure at which individual negotiators should invariably settle, but they must seek to ensure that the national target is achieved. This means that the general level of settlements must be well within single figures. I shall later describe the measures the Government propose to ensure that

1113
living standards will not fall in consequence.
"The Government recommend those concerned with pay determination in both the public and private sectors to be guided by these considerations and to make new settlements on the basis that they will last for 12 months. They will do everything possible to secure that full account is taken of this guidance throughout the public sector: the guidance applies equally to the private sector and the Government expect similar action there.
"In settling pay in important areas of the public sector, the Government have long had valuable assistance from the three pay review bodies. The Government value their help and will ask them to continue their task within the guidance for pay I have described.
"It will not be possible in the next 12 months to deal with the whole range of pay anomalies and other problems that have inevitably arisen during a period of strict pay guidelines. Only the most serious difficulties can be tackled in the coming year, if necessary on a phased basis and taking full account of the need to keep the total settlement within single figures.
"Dividend Control and the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975: The Government propose to extend dividend controls for a further year with the same limit of 10 per cent. as at present. The Government have already announced their intention to extend for one year the present control over the profit margins of manufacturers, service firms and distributors. In addition, it is necessary to continue the provisions in relation to employers in the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act 1975 to the extent needed to support and enforce the TUC guidance on the 12 months rule. An order will be required under that Act to achieve all these purposes. Further orders will be needed in due course for the details of the margin control.
"Where a firm has reached a settlement which is quite clearly inconsistent with the policies set out in this Statement, the Government will take this into account in public, purchasing policy and the placing of contracts,
1114
and also in the consideration of industrial assistance.
"If I may now deal with Government measures to maintain living standards, the government will of course continue discussions with the TUC over the whole field of the Social Contract. Meanwhile, the Government are responding to the TUC's request for action to create a climate favourable to an orderly return to normal collective bargaining. In particular, they are proposing measures which can give working people confidence that their living standards can be generally maintained by moderate settlements at 12 month intervals. These measures are designed to give special help to the low paid and to families with children.
"The improvement in the economic prospect since the Budget—in particular the improvement in the balance of payments—makes it possible for me to make the following proposals in the field of taxation, prices and employment.
"The House has now agreed that the reduction in petrol duty should take effect from 6 p.m. on 8th August. I do not intend to look for offsetting tax increases elsewhere.
"The Government also accept the principle expressed in certain Amendments made at Committee stage of the Finance Bill that the income tax personal allowances should be increased further. However, as I explained in my Budget Statement, the Government wish to concentrate relief this year particularly on families. By contrast, the Committee stage Amendments would tilt the balance in favour of the single personal allowance. I shall therefore be proposing at Report stage of the Finance Bill to substitute an Amendment which will increase the allowances, but restore the balance of my original proposal in favour of families. It will increase the single personal allowance by £40 and the married person's allowance by £70 as compared with the increase in these allowances which I originally proposed in my Budget speech, at a cost of some £490 million; and there will be corresponding increases in other allowances. At the same time, I will propose a reduction in the basic rate of income tax by 1p from 35p to 34p, at a cost of some £470 million. The

1115
total full year costs of the income tax reliefs in this year's Finance Bill will thus come to some £2¼ billion—closely in line with my original intention in the Budget.
"Child Benefit: the Government have also decided to increase family support in 1978–79 by a substantial improvement in the rates of child benefit as part of the further phasing in of the child benefit scheme. From April 1978 child benefit rates will be increased from the present £1 for the first child and £1·50 for subsequent children to £2·30 for all children, together with a doubling of the present premium for the first child of one-parent families to £1, at a net Exchequer cost in 1978–79 which will be over £300 million. The new rates will result in part from a further step in the phasing out of child tax allowances, the basic level of which will be reduced to £100. A fuller statement about the level of child tax allowances in 1978–79 will be made in due course. Regulations for the new child benefit rates will be laid very shortly.
"Price Reductions: The Government have decided to prevent certain increases in the cost of living which would otherwise take effect before the end of this year and which are particularly burdensome for people on low incomes or with family commitments. Milk is an important item in family budgets, especially when there are several children. The Government have therefore decided to increase the milk subsidy so as to prevent an immediate further price rise of 1½p a pint and to keep the price of milk-unchanged until the end of the year. The cost will be about £110 million falling in the financial year 1977–78.
"The Government have also decided to raise the income limits for eligibility for free school meals. This will provide over half a million more children with free school meals and increase the number benefiting to about one quarter of those children who take school meals. School meals will now be free for a family with two children having earnings up to over £60 a week, and for a family with four children up to over £75 a week. The cost will be £18 million in 1977–78 and £28 million in a full year
1116
and local authorities will be consulted about how this should be reimbursed.
"The electricity discount scheme will be operated again this winter, in order to relieve households receiving family income supplement or supplementary benefit of 25 per cent. of one quarter's bill.
"Additional Jobs and the Industrial Strategy: The Government announced last month a programme of training and work experience courses for young people at a cost building up to £160 million a year; and a special temporary employment programme providing jobs for adults at a cost of £68 million a year.
"The Government have also decided to approve up to a further £100 million for construction in the current financial year, so as to assist employment in the construction industry, which is now going through a particularly difficult time. This is in addition to the £100 million for inner cities which I announced in the Budget. The Government are considering in the course of the normal annual review of public expenditure what further help can be given to the construction industry in the next financial year.
"The Government have also reviewed the requirements for additional expenditure in support of the industrial strategy. As a result, a further cash sum of £70 million will be provided, to be drawn down over the next few years for schemes in the ferrous foundry and machine tools industries and for a new product and process development scheme.
"The total cost of all the measures I have just announced is £1¼ billion in the current financial year, rising to £1½billion next year. The resulting stimulus to demand in the economy will in itself generate substantial additional employment.
"Public Expenditure: The Government will maintain their strict control over public expenditure. The cost of the public expenditure measures in the current year will be found from within the contingency reserve so that no change will be required in this year's planned total for public expenditure.
"The individual expenditure programme for 1978–79 will also be

1117
affected by the decisions now announced concerning child benefit, school meals and the industry schemes. However, for total public expenditure the White Paper published last January (Cmnd. 6721) remains the basis for planning. The programmes will be reviewed in detail in the annual survey.
"Cash Limits: For 1977–78 the cash limits have already been fixed and published in Cmnd. 6767. No general changes are planned in the limits. For 1978–79 the assumptions used will reflect the Government's policy on pay. Spending authorities will not be able to rely on supplementary provision beyond the cash limits.
"Public Sector Borrowing Requirement and Monetary Policy: Taken by themselves, the tax reliefs which I have announced this morning imply a net addition of £100 million to the Budget estimate for the PSBR for the current year. On the other hand, developments in the economy since the spring point to a reduction in the original forecast. As I have explained, the additions to public expenditure this year will be found from within the contingency reserve, and imply no additional change in the PSBR. I am satisfied that the measures I have announced will not increase the PSBR above the level of £8·5 billion I forecast in the Budget—that is, a figure within the limit of £8·7 billion which I announced last December at the time of the IMF agreement.
"Equally, I am satisfied that the measures which I have announced this morning are consistent with the limit which I have announced for DCE—domestic credit expansion—and the forecast range for sterling M3. The Government are determined to maintain their DCE limit and related control of M3.
"Conclusion: Mr. Speaker, in deciding on the measures which I have announced this morning, the Government have taken account of the progress achieved on the balance of payments since the Budget, of the guidance given by the TUC for a phased and orderly return to normal collective bargaining, and of the revised prospects for the PSBR in 1977–78.
1118
"They will give substantial additional protection to living standards for working people generally, and especially for families with children and those with earnings well below the average. Indeed for the great majority of workers they will themselves be enough, or more than enough, fully to offset the price increase which the Government expect between now and the end of this year.
"As I have said, this orderly return to normal collective bargaining is essential to our objective of getting inflation down to single figures and keeping it there. We recognise that we are now attempting something which earlier Governments of both Parties failed to achieve. But the policy I have described is one within which living standards will be maintained.
"It is a policy which must be applied by all concerned with good sense and realism. The Government will play their full part with the TUC and the CBI in seeking to achieve this".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
11.45 a.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, for having repeated this important Statement, but I must say that a Statement which lasts for 21 minutes is a fairly substantial Statement, and I think that by most considerations it would be thought to be too long, despite its contents. But this Statement will require time to study, and I shall not fall into the trap of going into points in detail because there is to be an economic debate next Wednesday, and that is when this should be properly done. But I feel bound to refer to one or two matters.
The first matter which causes surprise is that we were all led to believe by the newspapers that there would be a White Paper on the Government's determination, and I wonder why a White Paper has not been issued. There are reports that there was a split in the Cabinet, and that this was the reason why there has been no White Paper, though I would not expect the noble Lord, Lord Peart, to say that that was the reason. But one wonders why the Government have decided not to have a White Paper but to have a lengthy Statement instead.

1119
In so far as the Government feel that the fight against inflation is important, we entirely and absolutely agree. It is the biggest killer of success, incentive and initiative, and of course one of the greatest contributors in this regard is high taxation. This runs right across the board from the highest paid to the lowest paid and is one of the greatest causes of inflation. I doubt whether a drop in the basic rate from 35p to 34p will be hailed by many as a great incentive. However, I was glad to see that the Government are to urge the TUC to bring inflation down to single figures, at the same time as returning to orderly collective bargaining. But why do they give no guideline as to what those figures should be, and how do they think that this can be achieved when there are some wage claims of up to 90 per cent. being mooted already?
I believe that the Government are wrong to place reliance, as they have done again in this Statement, on the prosperity of the future deriving from North Sea oil. The economy of the country should be right, and should be proper, with or without North Sea oil, and I fear that this Statement has done nothing to alter the basic malaise, stagnation, and lack of incentive and encouragement which exists in the economy at the moment.
I should like to ask three questions of the noble Lord, which I consider the most important. Does not the significance of this Statement, whatever it contains, lie in the fact that the Trades Union Congress has decided no longer to go along with the Government in their economic policy? This must be one of the biggest blows, among many, which the Government have received. As the Government are in fact kept in power by the Lib-Lab pact, can the noble Lord say whether the contents of this Statement, or the Statement itself, has had the approval of the Liberal Party? Thirdly, the Government say that they will continue to discuss with the TUC the whole field of the Social Contract which, after all, is the fulcrum of the Government's policy. Is the Social Contract now dead, and if it is not dead, what part of it is still alive?
11.50 a.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, we from these Benches also would like to thank the
1120
noble Lord for the Statement that he has repeated. As the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said, the House would not expect a detailed comment on a Statement which is even more important than it is long—and that is, I admit, saying a good deal. The general tenor of the Statement is one which we must, of course, welcome in that it continues the fight against inflation; and we would agree with the noble Earl that nothing in the economy is more important than that this fight should be won. We should like to reserve our detailed comment for the economic debate next week, when it will have been possible to examine in much greater detail the content of this extremely important document.
There are, however, just two points I should like to make, one a comment and one a question. We on these Benches are particularly glad to see that the Government have resisted the temptation of generalised food subsidies. As the House will be aware, there was of course pressure that these should have been given, but this, we believe, would have been an extremely retrogressive step. On the other hand, it seems to us entirely right that assistance should be given to families, to people with children to support, both in the form of the improved child benefit and in the raising of the level of pay of people able to take advantage of free school meals. The question I should like to put to the Minister, simply to clarify an extremely important point in a long and complicated Statement, is this. I understand that the 12 months rule holds as an item of declared policy agreed by the TUC with the Government: that, while there is not a norm—and, for my part, as I said earlier this week or last week in your Lordships' House, I believe there are advantages as well as disadvantages in not having a specific norm, which inevitably becomes a minimum—it is quite clearly understood on all sides that the 12 months rule holds. This being so, am I right in assuming from this document that, through the Price Commission, sanctions will be taken against the price margins of an employer who seeks price increases where that employer (or perhaps I should say "if an employer" because I will not anticipate that employers will in fact break this 12 months rule) gives a wage increase contrary to the 12 months rule?
Lord PEART: My Lords, first may I answer the question about a White Paper? The point there is that we needed to get this out very quickly, before Parliament rose. A White Paper takes a long time to produce and to print, and this was a very convenient way to do this. There was no split, and I am amused at the suggestion. The Opposition do not seem too pleased about the Statement. That pleases me, really. I suspect they realise that it will be broadly welcomed by the nation as representing a good package and also as outlining the strategy for conquering inflation and pulling this country through. So I do not think the Opposition should be too critical. I await with interest the debate on Wednesday, when no doubt we shall be able to be more dialectical, when we shall have more debate, and when we shall he able to analyse in greater detail and depth. But that is the reason.
I was asked by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, about the fight against inflation and high taxation. I should have thought that the proposals we have put forward would, again, be welcomed. The whole of the strategy is designed to challenge inflation, to overcome it and to reduce the rate so that we can compete with our competitors in the markets of the world—and we shall do this. The noble Earl warned me about oil. He knows that oil is going to come; that is why the Tories are so anxious to get back. They will do anything. Their Leader is so anxious to get power. She is afraid that, if we go on with successful policies, the British people, in their good common sense, will return the Government which brought them through.
I was also asked about the "Lib-Lab Pact" and the attitude of the Liberal Party. That is for the Liberals to say, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has mentioned their views on this. I think there has been a general welcome, at least to the tenor of the Statement, but emphasising the fight against inflation. Then I was asked about food subsidies.
Earl FERRERS: I am sorry, my Lords, but would the noble Lord answer the point I made?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I will come hack to it. I do not want to monopolise the debate. I agree with the point made on
1122
food subsidies. I know that the noble Baroness raised this point in a previous economic debate, and I think I answered it then. We think a specific subsidy—for example, on milk—will be broadly welcomed, as will also the proposals with regard to school meals. May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that I think the farming communities will welcome this, too, because, after all, milk is produced by British farmers, and this will be good for both the producer and the consumer. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, need not smile about this. When I was Minister of Agriculture I was always asked to consider this because the consumption of milk is important for our own domestic agriculture.
Earl FERRERS: What about the bread subsidy?
Lord PEART: The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, wanted to ask something. What did I miss out?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Peart, said, quite rightly of course, that whether or not the Liberal Party agreed with the Statement was a matter for the Liberal Party. That was not the question I asked. What I asked was: Had the contents of the Statement had the approval of the Liberal Party?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot say that. I cannot, honestly. However, there is no reason why the Tory Party should worry about our relations with the Liberal Party. Is it because it is a success? I believe it is.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask a purely neutral question? The noble Lord the Leader of the House has twice expressed the hope that inflation may be speedily brought down to that of our major competitors. Could he quantify a little and give some indication of the length of time it will take to reach that goal?
Lord PEART: No, my Lords. I could not answer that and I would be a fool if I tried to be specific. I am being neutral, too.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? In the comprehensive Statement we have just

1123
listened to, I do not think there was a reference, though I may have missed something, to the continuing control of the money supply. The question I should like to ask the noble Lord is whether we may take it that the policy of the Government is to continue to keep a firm hand on the excessive expansion of the money supply, which might aggravate unemployment. I have a second, subsidiary question, if I may. The noble Lord was casting about for reasons why the White Paper was not published. Had he thought, bearing in mind the Question we had earlier, that one reason might be the undesirability of adding further to the supply of waste paper?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think I will follow that one up. I do not think this document will be thrown in the wastepaper basket. It will be read, I hope, by everyone concerned. Yes, I did make a reference to money supply, and we regard that as important. Again, I once stressed this in a previous debate. I will certainly deploy this argument in detail later, when we have our debate next week.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord whether he is going to reply to the question put by my noble friend Lady Seear on price margins, which we consider to be very important? May I also ask him about a specific point in the Statement? It is one which I have raised on a number of occasions. Can he amplify the reference to the occupational pensions and the 12 months rule? There is a tremendous interest among potential pensioners, companies and trade unions to get a clear statement as to whether they can now, in the light of this Statement, go ahead and improve existing schemes and bring in new ones to benefit, particularly, low-paid workers and people who are going to retire within the next two or three years. This is important. If the noble Lord cannot answer it now, may we have a clear statement from the Minister concerned on Monday? Because the new scheme comes into operation in April of next year, and everything has to be ready in December of this year.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am sorry I missed the question that the noble Baroness asked, which was on firms
1124
breaking the price control and the question of sanctions. I cannot at this stage say anything specific. I mentioned how we could, through contracts, affect certain firms in other directions, but there is nothing specific in my Statement on that. I will follow that up on Wednesday. On the other matter, which is a detailed one, yes, I will have a look at this. It is a very important one; but there is nothing in the Statement on this.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not interesting that, in their great concern about taxation, noble Lords opposite have not had the grace to mention the fact that the lower paid will be dealt with by taxation, and that their only concern was for the higher paid?
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House be good enough to bear in mind that it is extremely difficult, for me, anyway, to assimilate a Statement of that length? I take it that we shall have to wait for Hansard before we can see it. If not on this occasion—when it might be difficult—would he in future bear in mind that when Statements of similar length are read duplicate copies should be made available in the Printed Paper Office at the conclusion of the Statement?
The second question that I should like to ask is this. While fully appreciating the difficulties—and every noble Lord must be aware of those difficulties—which face not only the Government but the country, may I ask whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House would give an assurance that, in the framing of policy and its implementation, the Government will bear in mind, particularly at a time when basic human rights are the subject of world discussion, that there is a fundamental human right; that of a man to provide, through the sweat of his own brow, food and covering for his family?—namely, the right to work. Another name for that, when it is not available, is unemployment. I. for one, fear that this Statement, tested against time, may, a year from now, result in unemployment in this country much worse than it is now. That, basically, is the embittering factor that makes it so difficult for the responsible men who lead the trade unions to get the acquiescence of their rank and file to the proposals of the Government.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the question of unemployment is a very serious one and something that causes great distress. We must conquer it; I accept that, but it is not going to be easy. One has only to see the figures of unemployment for countries in the European Community. France produced some figures only yesterday. The proposals are partly designed to deal with this. I mentioned the specific measures announced by my right honourable friend the Minister for Employment. They are very positive measures to stimulate training and also to get a good climate in industry so that we can go forward to expansion. That is our strategy and we shall continue it. I am sorry that the Statement was so long; but I asked the Treasury last night whether they would supply duplicate copies in the Printed Paper Office. I hope that they are there. If not, I shall find out why. Nevertheless the text will be in Hansard.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord help me on a point which he may think is not enormously important and which may be clear to him. I understood him to say that the total cost of the measures proposed would be £1¼ billion in the current financial year; that current expenditure would still be subject to rigid control and that Command Paper 6721 would remain the basis of the allocation of funds. Referring to Command Paper 6721, I find that the amount set for contingency, which is the fund on which he proposes to draw, is not £1¼ billion but only £650 million. There is a similar discrepancy between the figure for the next financial year and the £900 million set out there. Although this may seem a question of detail, there may be £850 million to be found elsewhere and I think that the House ought to be told from where; because taxation, not unwelcomely, is to be reduced and it must come from somewhere.
Lord PEART: My Lords, we are to have a debate. I mentioned the total cost of the measures which I have announced as £1¼ billion in the current financial year rising to £1½ billion next year. We can examine the figures in depth in the debate.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, while welcoming very much the social measures which have been announced and hoping that they will create the atmosphere necessary for a continuation de facto of the Social Contract, may I ask whether my noble Leader would not agree that normal collective bargaining, in the past, at any rate, has meant cumulative cost inflation?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I recognise some of the dangers here. With good will and a sense of responsibility on both sides, I think that it is right that we should have an orderly approach to this system. I believe that this is the right way to do it. There are dangers, I agree. As I said before, no country and no Government have ever tackled this successfully. We must do it this time.

HOUSING (HOMELESS PERSONS) BILL
12.6 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill was introduced into the Commons by my honourable friend Stephen Ross, the Member for the Isle of Wight, as a Private Member's Bill, but it has had all-Party support and the Government have given most valuable time and assistance. On the other hand, it is certainly not free from controversy. Judging by the correspondence which I have received, I am being shot at from both sides; but perhaps that is more encouraging than complete silence. I think that most of the controversial issues can best be dealt with in Committee, but it might be helpful to the House if I were to read the first paragraph of the Explanatory Memorandum:
"The main purpose of the Bill is to replace the limited duty of local social services authorities to provide temporary accommodation for those in urgent need, in certain circumstances, by duties to be placed on local housing authorities to provide, secure or help secure accommodation for homeless persons and those threatened with homelessness."
My Lords, we are only too well aware of the actute and persistent problem that homelessness continues to present. It is scarcely possible for us to imagine that we can abolish it forthwith, but the very least that we can do is to try to ensure that there are proper arrangements for helping those who find themselves

1127
homeless. That is the objective of this Bill. At present, the only statutory duty on local authorities to help homeless people is that in the National Assistance Act 1948. It may be that at that time it was possible to assume that people became homeless mainly because of some emergency or disaster such as fire or flood and that, with temporary accommodation and a little help from the social services, they would be able to sort things out for themselves. Unhappily, that is not the position of the homeless today, if it ever was. People lose their homes for a variety of reasons and, despite all heroic efforts and housing programmes, we know that many face real difficulties in finding somewhere to live. They need help and not just something that is temporary.
The reasons for the present position are complex and I doubt whether it would be helpful to dwell on them this morning. I do not think that this is the occasion to debate the housing situation generally or the Government's valuable Consultative Document. The important point for us to concentrate on today is that a measure is needed to provide some swift and effective help to individuals who, at a particular point in their lives, suffer the misfortune of becoming homeless.
The policy underlying the Bill is clear and commands general support. It is set out in a circular issued in 1974 jointly by the Department of the Environment, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Welsh Office. But that circular has of itself no statutory force, and as the policy is that responsibility for helping homeless people with their housing needs should be a matter for housing authorities, it is clearly unsatisfactory to continue a situation in which the only specific statutory duty in relation to any kind of accommodation is that laid on social services authorities under the 1948 Act.
This question of responsibility is clarified under the Bill and the aim is to ensure that some form of help should be made available to all homeless people, but particularly to those in the priority groups identified in the circular. It is a measure of the general support for the approach that the responsibility for helping homeless
1128
people has been adopted, in whole or in part, by the majority of housing authorities already, at least in England and Wales. And in the light of the recommendations of the Morris Committee it seems only right to apply this policy also to Scotland. But the fact that there are still a number of housing authorities in England and Wales which have not yet assumed this responsibility demonstrates the need for effective legislation.
This, as I pointed out, is a Private Member's Bill with sponsors drawn from a wide range of Parliamentary opinion. The Government had entered into a commitment to introduce appropriate legislation as soon as possible, but found that they could not include a Bill on homelessness in their own programme this Session. We are therefore profoundly grateful to my honourable friend the Member for the Isle of Wight who won a high place in the Private Members' ballot and lost no time in bringing forward this particular Bill.
It is a happy coincidence to have a Bill introduced by a member of the Liberal Party, supported by the Labour Government and based on a policy circular issued by the last Conservative Administration. I feel it necessary to make one apology; namely, that this Bill should be introduced here so late in the Session. As a member of the Select Committee on Practice and Procedure, I was one of those who said that Bills should not be brought here late in the Session, and I apologise for the fact that this is unavoidable. It was necessary at first for Mr. Ross's Bill to wait its turn in the queue for the Private Members' Committee in another place. There was considerable discussion, as was only right; but it would be a sad disappointment to many if the Bill did not reach the Statute Book this Session.
Many of your Lordships will no doubt already be familiar with the main provisions of the Bill. The essential objectives are to give effect to the transfer of responsibility to housing authorities and to provide appropriate help for all homeless people within available resources; and, as your Lordships are probably aware, help is to be given to voluntary organisations concerned with homelessness, and that is dealt with in Clause 10 of the Bill.

1129
Homelessness and priority need are defined in Clause I. The definitions here make it clear that a person is homeless if there is no accommodation, not only for himself but also for his family and anyone who might reasonably he expected to reside with him. It is not intended that families should be split up: for example, the outcome of homelessness should not oblige parents to be separated from their children. The definition also makes clear that the Bill is concerned with prevention wherever possible, and with the avoidance of what might be called crisis management. It covers those in the position of being threatened with homelessness, those who are likely within 28 days to be evicted, whatever kind of accommodation they may have.
May I illustrate the importance of this. Over a number of years I have from time to time had cases of tenants—and I have great sympathy for them—who, for reasons I need not go into, have not been protected. I have had to say: "I am very sorry. Nothing can be done until you are actually evicted. When you and your family have been turned out, when your furniture and belongings have been put into the street, then something will be done, but you will have to wait until that happens". That seems to be a mad state of affairs in a country which is considered to be enlightened—at least, we hope that it is, this point will be covered by the words "threatened with homelessness".
Now to priorities. The definition of priority need is of central importance. The joint circular of 1974 acknowedged the limitations on authorities' scope for action to assist all homeless people and sought to identify certain groups who are particularly vulnerable in housing terms. They are broadly families with dependent children, the elderly and disabled and pregnant women, and also those made homeless in an emergency or disaster. I recognise that a number of your Lordships would wish to extend these categories. But the Bill does not lay down priorities for all time. The clause enables the definition of priority need to be altered by order subject to a Resolution of both houses of Parliament as needs require and circumstances permit. On the other hand, it would be no service to anyone to impose too great an obligation at the outset.
1130
There has been some confusion about the position of what are known as battered wives—I think it is more accurate to say "battered women". It is clear that the Bill covers battered women. That is to say, if a person who can be considered as a battered woman has to leave the home with the children, then such a person would come into the category of priority need. As I understand it, if it is just the individual woman, she would come into the category of those requiring and deserving need and assistance. But this matter can be gone into in further detail on Committee.
The Earl of LONGFORD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? I do not know whether he is going to say anything more about battered women. He probably is aware that the organisations which represent battered women are very much concerned and perturbed at the changes made elsewhere which they think put them in a position where they are getting no advantage at all from the Bill.
Lord WADE: My Lords, may I make two points? First, I do not believe it is correct to say they get no benefit at all. Secondly, I thought it would be appropriate, in the light of the time factor, that we should discuss that aspect on Committee. Obviously noble Lords will speak about this aspect during the course of the debate. I am fully aware of the complaints that have been made.
May I now say a few words about the other clauses. Clauses 2 and 3 set out the preliminary duties of housing authorities to make inquiries when people approach them, and to notify their findings. Clause 2(3) contains the important provision which ensures that the authority will secure that some accommodation is available to these people who need it while inquiries are being made.
Turning now to Clause 4, here we come to the main, substantive clause which defines the authority's duty towards homeless people. It has been considerably amended since first introduced. Again, your Lordships will want to consider it further during later stages; therefore I am content just to outline its broad content. The clause, as it now stands, covers a wide range of different cases.

1131
First, there is the case where, after due inquiry, the authority are satisfied that the person is homeless but is not in a priority need category. In that case, the duty is to provide advice and such assistance as the authority consider appropriate.
The clause then goes on to provide that, save in certain exceptional cases, the duty, where the person is homeless and in priority need, is to secure that accommodation is available for him. Subsection (5) makes it clear that the authority may fulfil that duty in a wide range of ways: by providing a council house, arranging for a housing association tenancy, advancing a mortgage loan, and so on. There are a variety of ways open to them. There is no requirement that they should offer a new council house tenancy as of right. I think there has been some misunderstanding on that.
The clause provides for certain exceptional circumstances. For example, in two cases the duty is not to secure accommodation, although of course they may do so, but to furnish advice and appropriate assistance. These cases are, first, where the person has become homeless intentionally and, secondly, where the person could probably secure or retain accommodation for himself. I recognise that those provisions are the subject of considerable comment and were brought forward to meet the argument that the Bill could give rise to a considerable level of self-induced homelessness by people whose object is to abuse the system and jump the queue. There are, unfortunately, a few who may spoil things for others.
This clause also tackles the difficult question of those who move between one local authority area and another. I think the extent of that may be exaggerated, but it was concluded in another place that the Bill must contain provisions to define the respective responsibilities of the so-called "sending" and "receiving" authorities. Before leaving Clause 4, I should like to add that the Sponsor of the Bill and I are very alive to the anxieties expressed by the charities about some aspects of the clause. I can assure your Lordships that the Sponsor of the Bill and, of course, the Ministry, are holding urgent consultations about this, and I would hope there would be an opportunity at Committee stage to consider suitable Amendments if they are thought necessary.
1132
Other clauses to which I should like particularly to draw your Lordships' attention are Clauses 6, 9 and 10. Clause 6 is important in that it underlines that our help to homeless people must be based on a corporate and co-operative approach. It makes clear that housing authorities and social services authorities are still to work together, joining their respective strengths and experiences. Clause 9 provides that authorities are to have regard to guidance to be given by the Secretary of State. A draft code of guidance in respect of England and Wales is now the subject of consultation with COSLA, and work on this subject is in hand so far as Scotland is concerned. Clause 10, as already mentioned, empowers the Secretary of State, housing authorities and the GLC to aid voluntary bodies working on homelessness. I hope that will become a very useful provision, though I recognise that at first, given existing constraints on resources, it may be difficult to make extensive use of it.
I have spent some time on the main provisions of the Bill, and I am trying to deal with this complicated Bill against the clock. The main provisions of the Bill represent a well-structured response to this acutely difficult and distressing problem. At the end of the day, the effectiveness of the legislation will depend on the good will and determination of housing authorities in their operation of these provisions. It would be unfair, in our eagerness to assist the unfortunate, to overlook the real pressures that face the authorities, but in my judgment, we must aim to get this Bill through as a first and important step forward.
There are, of course, as I have said, points to consider in Committee. I hope we shall be able then to reassure many of those who have expressed anxieties, but we must keep our sense of perspective. This is a long overdue measure. It represents an advance and we must see how far we can improve on it. We must ensure that, at the end of the day, we get the Bill on to the Statute Book. I should, incidentally, like to say a word about the timetable. I regret, as I have said, that we are starting this Bill late in July. It is unavoidable. I wish very much that we had been able to hold this debate some time ago; but we must face the fact that there is not much time left for the Bill, and that those of us who

1133
care for the homeless will not want to risk losing it. I hope that we can achieve some kind of consensus. We can reasonably hope that time will be available in another place for agreed Amendments, but I am certain that Amendments which do not command general support in both Houses, however well intentioned, are likely to destroy the chances of the whole Bill. My Lords, I hope this Bill will commend itself to your Lordships, and I beg to move its Second Reading.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a;.—(Lord Wade.)
12.29 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for introducing this Bill to us this morning and, if I may say so, for the very moderate and balanced way in which he has put his case. I think we would all agree with his final remarks, and I shall return to that point later in what I have to say. Nothing could be more poignant or more tragic than the continuing number of homeless families in this country. It is a real scar on our whole society. One of the many booklets which has been sent to me by the different charities concerned with the homeless was one entitled, Jubilee Year for the Homeless, which sets out the figures for the growth of applications from homeless households to local councils for help.
The figures start off in 1970, when there were just over 26,000 such applications, dropping in 1971 to just over 25,000, and from then on showing an increase. In 1974, there were just over 39,000, and in 1975 the figures had risen to 50,000. It so happened that the statistics published by the Department of the Environment came out only yesterday, and I notice—if I am reading the figures correctly—that for 1976 the figures have risen to 52,570, and there is no reason whatever to suppose that the figures for 1977 will show a decrease. Rather, unless something extraordinary happens, I think we can expect a steady increase in this absolutely appalling problem.
I should like to say immediately that we all share the horror of it; we all feel that it is wrong and we should all like to do something about it. I am not absolutely clear whether the figures from the Department of the Environment include the
1134
single homeless, but if they do not then the situation is even worse than that which I have outlined. With such a terrible background, it is only right, therefore, that all of us in public life should do all that we can to try to put right this situation, and it is very much in this spirit that I approach this Bill, as do my noble friends.
I have always tried to approach housing matters in a constructive frame of mind, and I believe that one of the greatest tragedies in the whole of the housing situation—and I say this in all seriousness—is that we have never managed to achieve any measure of a bipartisan policy on housing, that the gap which has divided us on the ways of going forward has been so great, and I believe one of the consequences is the ever-growing number of homeless families. We can indeed, to a certain extent, measure the problem that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has outlined by looking at the statistics as they have been given to us. If the total number of homeless households making applications to local authorities in 1976 was 52,570, and, if, as we see from the statistics, the total number who were found permanent accommodation was 31,070 and the total number found temporary accommodation was 6,450, it leaves a balance of just over 15,000 households unaccounted for. We do not know where they are, we do not know what they are doing and I presume that this Bill aims to do something about this group of people, who are not currently being helped by one of the agencies that are available.
Having said that, I am now bound to put in a caveat. This is, I am certain, a very well-intentioned Bill, but we must face the fact that when it goes on the Statute Book it will not build one more house, nor will it encourage one more person to let one more room; and, at the end of the day, the law of supply and demand, hard and tough as it is, operates in housing as it operates in other fields. If there are no more houses or places for people to go to, there will continue to be homeless. I think it important to emphasise these facts, for it would appear to me that many of the organisations which want to help the homeless have had their hopes raised very high indeed by this Bill. If, indeed, there are no more houses forthcoming, the homeless will be with us, and it is no use just making allegations about various people who ought to do more,

1135
because that will not create the houses, nor will it encourage people to let property.
Perhaps I may say, as a mark, at any rate, of my good faith in this matter, that I have tried on several occasions in your Lordships' House to be constructive about the operation of the Rent Acts. This is not the moment to review all the arguments, but the fact remains that one of the reasons why people decline to let property is not simply the operation of the rent levels, though it is a very real point; it is at any rate in the case of residential landlords, the fact that, despite what the Acts say, the 1974 Rent Act has in many cases made it almost impossible to regain possession of rooms in your own house in which you are resident. I have raised this point twice in Unstarred Questions in this House, and I may say that I received no encouragement whatever from the Government on this matter.
I was, however, agreeably surprised to read in paragraph 8.21 of the Government's own Green Paper on Housing Policy, published only a few weeks ago, that the provision covering the residential landlord is causing more trouble than it is worth, and that the Government are proposing to alter the length of time required to regain possession of a property. They recognise that, if they do that, someone with a second fixed-term letting will no longer have security of tenure in somebody else's house. This is a complicated point, but I believe that if there is one way to help the homeless single person it is by encouraging more residential landlords to let; they could take in the homeless single person. But unless you increase the supply fundamentally, you will do nothing about the problem. I quote all this, because I should like to believe, and I should like all those who care about this situation to believe, that if there can be a measure of bipartisan policy on this I shall be the first to support it, for I believe that it will help. I am not doing this to show that I have said something in the past which may now be shown to be right. That is no way forward. What matters is that those without homes should be helped.
To return to the Bill, a great many changes were made in the original version as a result of the work of my honourable friend Mr. Rossi in another place, and I
1136
believe that the amendments made represent a compromise, and a valuable one. There is no doubt at all that the district councils, as housing authorities, were concerned that in the Bill as it originally stood there would have been an absolute duty upon them to rehouse the homeless, no matter what the cause. Since, as I believe I have aready indicated, the Bill will not provide more houses, this policy could mean only that those who had waited patiently on the housing list—and who is to say whether, in some cases, their need was not at least as great as some who had become homeless—would find themselves further down the queue, with a homeless family getting a house in front of them.
I need not go over all the arguments which have been so well stated in another place. But the Bill as originally drafted would have undermined the basic principle of local authorities, that they should be free to determine their own points scheme and their housing priorities for the people in their own areas. This Bill, coming fast upon the Rent (Agriculture) Act, under which local authorities are required,
"…to use their best endeavours to rehouse agricultural workers",
shows that, far from wanting local authority freedom, both the Government and, in its original intentions, the Liberal Party feel that they know best how local authorities should determine their housing lists. This is not a principle which I feel to be right, and if one believes in local democracy, as I do—and, after all, I spent 15 years in a housing authority—then one must believe that they ought to consider as their duty the best interests of the people they represent.
My honourable friend Mr. Rossi moved four basic Amendments into this Bill. The first was that local authorities should have some discretion to determine who is a homeless person. This would avoid charges of queue-jumping and would, of course, safeguard families on the housing list and prevent distortions in the points system. The second was that local authorities would be responsible for housing only those homeless families normally resident in their area, and that the responsibility for housing other persons would fall on the local authority in whose area they previously resided. In the meantime, local authorities would

1137
still be able to provide temporary accommodation. The third was that the definition of priority cases for housing and rehousing included in the Bill is on the lines, as the noble Lord, Lord Wade, indicated, of the Conservative Government's circular 18/74. That circular indicated that priority should be given to families with dependent children and to persons who are particularly vulnerable and unable to fend for themselves because of old age, disability, pregnancy or other special reasons.
The fourth major Amendment was that local authorities would not have the power to requisition or compulsorily purchase a home where the landlord had obtained a possession order against a tenant for non-payment of rent or for bad behaviour. I hope that we shall not hear any suggestion during the Committee stage of this Bill that there ought to be compulsory acquisition of properties, whether they are empty or whether they might have fallen into the category where the landlord wished to regain possession.
I believe that the proper way around the whole question, or at least one constructive suggestion for dealing with the matter of empty properties, is to encourage more authorities—and I believe that the number is growing—to take up what has come to be called the North Wiltshire District Council Housing Scheme, whereby private owners of empty property let to the local authority, who guarantee to the owner the return of his property after two or three years. Ironically enough, it is only local authority tenants who do not have security of tenure. Also, it is only the local authority which can guarantee to regain possession of the property and rehouse the tenant. I hope very much that these important Amendments which have been moved by my honourable friend Mr. Rossi will remain in this form in the Bill and that there will be no attempt to put it back into its original form, otherwise we on this side of the House will feel obliged to reconsider our position.
There is one outstanding aspect upon which I have not touched, and that is finance. We are all well aware of the very serious financial situation in which local authorities find themselves today. Indeed, I noticed that the economic Statement which was read out to us
1138
stated that there is to be no increase in public expenditure. Presumably this means that there will be no increase in the totality of the rate support grant for local authorities and that they will be very fortunate indeed if the money available keeps up with the rate of inflation, let alone makes allowance for any kind of improvements. Those of us who are interested in local government matters know that when the Government say that they intend to give £100 million to the inner cities this almost certainly means that the counties will receive less, because the total sums of money will not increase. If the Bill is to work at all, I find it extraordinary that we should read in the Financial Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill that there will be no net addition to public expenditure.
When we were debating another very important Bill, the Children Bill, in your Lordships' House, I expressed great concern that the amount of increased expenditure allowed was much too small. That has proved to be the case. Large parts of that Act are not enforced because no money is available. To start off on this Bill and say that there will be no increase in public expenditure is surely an illusion. It is deluding people to state that we can do something about a situation if we do not have extra money with which to put it right. This is a point to which we may well return in Committee, but let me indicate the areas in which, if this Bill is to be carried out, there is bound to be increased cost.
More staff will be needed for the preliminary duties which are outlined in Clause 2, quite apart from the new duty regarding those who are threatened with homelessness. Persons threatened with homelessness will have to be considered by staff; they have not been considered before. If there is to be no extra housing accommodation, as I have already indicated, all the other housing applicants—those in tied agricultural accommodation, key workers and those in slums and on the waiting list—will have to go back into the queue, or nothing will happen. Obviously, there will have to be additional resources in order to provide advice and assistance. If every authority employs only one more person, there are 333 non-Metropolitan district councils, all of which will be

1139
affected by the Bill, quite apart from the Metropolitan district councils and the London boroughs. That total number of people adds up to a considerable sum of money.
The Association of County Councils has drawn my attention to one of the effects of the Bill. If district councils are unable to solve the housing problem, the applicants may return to the social service departments of the county councils. Although the intention of the Bill is that the staff and money provided by county councils for dealing with the homeless will be handed over to district councils, there could be a gap in the provision and the cost could be more.
I do not make these points in a debating spirit. This is a very serious matter. I am quite sure that many people have very high hopes of Bills of this kind. I suspect, although I cannot prove it, that one of the reasons why politicians and Parliament fall into disrespect is that we pass legislation with the very best of intentions but without the resources to meet them. People then become disillusioned because their hopes cannot be fulfilled. I believe that this is a serious matter for the whole country which ought to be taken into account.
One Amendment which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will consider is the starting date of the Bill. Clause 15 shows that it is intended that the Act should come into force on 1st December 1977. This is before the financial year for local authorities runs out, which is on 31st March 1978. I cannot see why Scotland should be differentiated in this way; the Scottish provisions come into force on 1st April 1978. I should have thought that it would be helpful to put back the starting date in order to meet local government points on this matter of finance.
I close my remarks where I began. This is a matter of great public concern to us all. We on this side of the House wish to be constructive, but we are realists. One can do only what is possible within the available resources. I should never want to be party to the pretence that much can happen when it cannot. At the end of the day, the homeless will be really helped when we have the resources and the houses to help them. If we can devise
1140
bipartisan measures to achieve this aim, I believe that this will be the greatest step forward in the housing world and I, from my side of the House, will do what I can to help. Having listened to the economic Statement, we must all hope that the economy will pick up, because when we are a richer country that will help the poorest members of it more than anything else.
12.47 p.m.
Baroness KIRK: My Lords, I hope that it will help the House if, on behalf of the Government, I indicate at this stage my welcome for the Bill which has been so ably and modestly presented by the noble Lord, Lord Wade. Like everybody else in this House, I believe that homelessness is probably the most pernicious of all the social problems, since so many others stem from it. The statistics which we collect from local authorities show clearly that, despite all the efforts of central and local government and of the many voluntary organisations who work so splendidly in this field, it is a continuing and ugly feature in our society, affecting far too many people.
Perhaps I may turn to the latest figures which are available today. I ought, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to say that these application figures are not always reliable. Our statistics are based on returns made by local authorities. They vary considerably, whether they are put in the form of all applications, or some applications or, very often, acceptances. However, the latest figures show that during the second half of 1976, over 16,000 households were accepted as homeless by local authorities in England. That is the firmer figure to stand by. These figures practically equal those for each half of 1975 and also for the first half of 1976. They emphasise that although only a relative minority may be affected at any one time, it is a continuing social sore and a horribly distressing one.
The figures also show that during the last six months of 1976 over 15,000 homeless households were found permanent accommodation; at the end of the year about 6,500 households were in temporary accommodation. The efforts made by housing and social services authorities obviously deserve recognition, but as the

1141
noble Lord, Lord Wade, indicated, this is a job for housing authorities and, as we all know, too many of them have still not accepted this responsibility. It is contemporarily inconsistent to leave the statutory duty with social services authorities.
There are always those who would urge delay and say, "Now is not the time". This has been said about various aspects and measures of social reform throughout the centuries, and while I accept to a great extent the anxiety expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, about resources, lack of resources can always be used as a very good action stopper and I do not believe it should always prevail. Of course resources are important in the context of this Bill, and the noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not enter into the debate on the Rent Acts, because we could be here all the afternoon doing that and the Rent Act review is under way at the present time. Of course resources are important, and lack of them means that we cannot do all that we would wish. I agree with the noble Baroness that this is where one has to be absolutely realistic. I hope that this House and another place will accept that and will realise that we cannot get all that we want to do in this Bill at this time.
What it does mean is that we must defer any progress and solve problems only if we have totally adequate resources. But equally, alas! we cannot ignore resources by placing on authorities burdens they cannot meet and, with all the good will and good intentions, one of the things which I hope will be borne in mind by all the knowledgeable speakers who are to come after me is that the question of resources will not enable them to get all they want and all that I personally should like to see in this Bill.
The Financial Memorandum, which has been referred to, mentions the overall public expenditure. There are bound to be local variations but there will be a public expenditure transfer from the DHSS to the housing side because of the change in the statutory duties, and the ADCs themselves estimate—and this is based on inflated expectations of numbers—that total cost to be about £5 million. This will largely be offset by the transfer but, on average, we reckon that it would be less than £16,000 per authority, which would then have the opportunity, under the plans
1142
proposed in the new Green Paper, to have more control over their own housing programme.
The Bill appreciates these problems in its recognition of the need for priorities, and the more strain there is on the resources, unfortunately, the tighter one has to be on one's order of priorities. Where there is a duty to secure accommodation I believe authorities can meet it in a range of ways. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, that where it is possible to apply the North Wiltshire scheme it most certainly should be done; but I think she recognises as well as I do that it is only in particular circumstances, and often in more rural areas, that it is possible to operate this scheme. I firmly believe that many housing authorities can secure much fuller use of the housing stock in their areas by better management and by using until the very last minute, property which is destined for rehabilitation or demolition, and in fact concentrating far more on rehabilitation and refurbishment than on demolition.
Within the next few weeks—and I hope it will be before the House rises—we shall be sending authorities a circular which draws together measures available to further this idea. I do not think I am being unrealistic when I say that one of the effects of a measure of this sort is to concentrate the minds of local authorities once again on the necessity to make the fullest use of the housing stock that is available, because taking the country as a whole it is not buildings that we are short of, it is the distribution of those which are in use at any one time. Anything that does this—and this is part of my personal support for the Bill—will obviously improve the situation.
I am aware that this very worthwhile Bill contains a number of difficult issues in the form in which it has come to us from another place. We have to face these and do what we can to improve the Bill with the broad consensus which is backing it. I cannot say that I can go all the way with the noble Baroness, who I felt gave the Bill an extremely mixed welcome. At one point I thought she was rather damning it with faint praise, but I hope she will be persuaded that it is a worth while measure and that, on the issues that are controversial at this

1143
particular time, it will be possible to get a consensus.
The Government are acutely aware of the anxieties expressed on particular points by those representing a number of charitable bodies, and, as we know, these refer to several Amendments introduced into the Bill at a late stage in another place. I also know that these are troubling a number of noble Lords—indeed, they trouble me: they include the way the Bill now treats those who move between local authority areas; those the authority considers to have made themselves homeless intentionally, and those they consider could secure or retain accommodation for themselves. These are also issues of deep concern to the authorities whose job it is to meet the needs of the homeless and also those in general housing need in their areas. It is that very difficult balance that one is trying to get in this Bill to make it workable, realistic and humane in its application.
There is no doubt in my mind that the text of the Bill as it is before us today clearly needs further thought on all these issues. I can assure your Lordships that these and other points that the charities have put before us (including the anxieties which have been stated to me personally and which have been raised today by my noble friend Lord Longford about the position of battered women) are already being studied with great sympathy and urgency. I do not want to get involved in that particular point at this moment, but it concerns me very much that there should not be a weakening of this situation in the Bill. I think it is still very strong and for the first time battered women are explicitly named and are considered as a priority group.
These and the other points are already being studied with great urgency; consultations are taking place with the sponsors of the Bill and the Government are keeping closely in touch with them. I believe that when we come to the Committee stage in this House we shall be able to find ways, which will meet with widespread acceptance, of dealing with the difficulties. For example, I have a particular objection to the provisions which could involve means testing. It is essential that this Bill should not now be rejected in the Micawber-ish hope that
1144
something better may turn up. It will not, and it cannot at the present time; and I hope that all noble Lords contributing to this debate will keep this fundamental point in mind.
Another difficult question and one of great concern to many in your Lordships' House is the acknowledgment of priority. This was an important aspect of the 1974 Circular and reflects the pressures on housing authorities in many areas, and it is incorporated in the Bill. The great difficulty is deciding where to draw the line. One would like to see the line drawn very much wider than in fact it is even now, but it is impossible at the present moment. The Bill follows the pattern of the joint circular where it gives priority to those with dependent children. The battered women with their children are now particularly mentioned, which they were not in the circular. Explicit priority must be given to pregnant women. Following the joint circular, priority must go to those who are vulnerable for other reasons—they may be old or afflicted mentally or physically—and, of course, those whose homelessness results from some sudden disaster. But, unfortunately, priority cannot be all-pervading.
I not only understand but deeply appreciate and share the concern over homeless single people, and I accept, of course, that there is no explicit reference to single people in the Bill. It would be quite wrong to conclude that the Bill ignores them. Some will be entitled to be treated under the Bill as priority cases—for example, pregnant women, the old and the disabled; the Bill provides, too, for authorities to treat as having priority need others who are vulnerable for special reasons, and this must include some of the young.
For other single people, again including young people, the Bill, in my view, represents a major step forward. Their housing problems are now recognised as part of the housing authorities' responsibility and the Bill specifically entitles them to advice and assistance. Before this is cried down or laughed away, I think we should remember that very often somebody who needs help to find accommodation needs a guideline as to how to set about it, even if it is a list of addresses. Ignorance of possibilities and

1145
lack of information are often the essence of the problem, and this applies to housing as much as it does in other fields. Therefore, in the code of guidance, we shall strongly encourage authorities to be as constructively helpful as they can.
In this House, we have been constantly concerned—as have I personally, in answering Starred and Unstarred Questions and debates—with the single young, especially teenage boys and, increasingly, girls, who leave home and are magnetically drawn to London and other major cities in search of work, adventure or both. Too frequently, they fail to find work or anywhere decent to live and the adventure turns into exploitation and homeless misery. This problem of those who up sticks and leave home poses acute problems for the authorities both of cities and of other areas like, for instance, seaside resorts. I personally believe that it would be a great help if those with influence on these youngsters—and there are some in this House who are speaking today—could find ways of impressing on them the accommodation problems that they are likely to face if they leave homes they already have. Nevertheless, they prefer to be more independent, which we do understand.
I understand that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security hopes to make a Statement in another place very shortly about consultations that we have had with the local authority associations following the work of a working group set up to consider the needs of homeless young people. I confess that I find this a most daunting problem and I doubt whether the provision of housing is the only, or even the main, answer in many cases to a wider and deeper problem. But, here again, authorities can help by securing better use of housing stock already available. If only we could use some of those—I was going to say "awful"—tower blocks, awful in terms of family living, for single people, including young single people, that would seem to me a valuable way of using some of the housing stock that we have.
This whole aspect must be set in the wider perspective of housing policy for single people to which we are increasingly devoting attention. Our Green Paper on housing contains a number of proposals
1146
which will be of help to young single people seeking accommodation, and we shall be looking at the possibility of making available some of the funds which will be distributed under Clause 10 of this Bill. Although presently not large, we hope that in future years these funds will make a significant contribution to a variety of specific needs of the homeless, including those of the young. Projects in Liverpool and other places have demonstrated what can be done with co-operation and imagination, underpinned by help from local authorities. This is an area where housing associations and voluntary bodies can, with thought and imagination, help a great deal.
Within the Department, we have also been looking at all that is known about the problems of single homelessness and have put in hand further research in order to identify more clearly the scale and nature of the problems of the different groups concerned. These problems are not homogenous. With our colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Security and other Departments we shall be looking very closely at this in the year ahead, and shall carry the work forward with as much urgency as is possible. All this will be taken into account when looking again at the code of guidance, which will need to be amplified on these points. But we also have to recognise that this is not the time to place too heavy statutory obligations on authorities.
My main concern in this intervention is to urge the House to recognise the value of this Bill. It is not a Government measure, but we support it and will concentrate on trying to improve it in a way that will command general support. It will not be possible to get the Bill into a form which will completely satisfy noble Lords or, indeed, anybody connected with housing, either within Parliament or outside. But let us be quite clear that if we reject it because it is not quite as we should like it—and here I express support for what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said on this point—we should not only deny the 1974 circular the statutory backing it needs, but we should also undermine the authority of that circular, and, I believe, leave the homeless in an even worse position. No housing authority which has not yet assumed responsibility for homeless people would be likely to do so, and other authorities would be greatly

1147
tempted to save money at the expense of the homeless. We know that this is already happening in some areas. If we allow the Bill to fail, it must then be on our consciences that we leave the homeless still worse off than they are now. Let us see this not as a perfect, nor as a comprehensive, measure, but as a beginning in the right direction. To do anything that would kill the Bill would be a fatal blow to the cause of the homeless and the hopes of individuals.
1.7 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I have listened with very considerable interest to the speeches which have already been made. I am bound to say that a very difficult situation confronts me personally, because I have some comments to make which are critical of the Bill. In view of what we have heard from my noble friend Lady Birk and also from the other noble Lords who have spoken, what I am about to talk about will be in a limited sphere. I know there are many others who want to speak, and the points in which they are interested are well known to me already, so I shall avoid as far as possible treading on their particular ground. I want to deal with one problem which gives us very considerable anxiety.
Perhaps I ought, in passing, to say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Young. We have often crossed swords on a point she has mentioned. I am very sorely tempted to enter into some kind of discussion, but I do not think today is quite the occasion for this. Perhaps on some future occasion I shall have the privilege of being able to answer some of the points she hinted at today in regard to the Rent Acts. They are not so bad as she has always imagined. They have saved millions of people from becoming homeless. They have been extremely important measures. Of course, like all Acts of Parliament, there are flaws—nobody would be so foolish as to suggest that there are not. On some future occasion I hope to have the privilege of debating with her.
On the other hand, I should like to say to my noble friend Lady Birk that she has taken a lot of the wind out of my sails on the point that I wanted to make and am about to make. Nevertheless, I very much admire the manner in which she has dealt with this Bill. I am bound to say
1148
that, in what she says, she always gives us a very good account of the Government view. Very often, it is interspersed with her own particular view, which on occasions, is not entirely in accord with the Government's view but which nevertheless carries weight. I hope that my noble friend Baroness Birk will ultimately be persuaded to appreciate the tremendous importance of what I am about to say.
I think that everyone welcomes the principle upon which the Bill was introduced to Parliament. It is 30 years since Parliament defined the obligations of local authorities towards homeless people and the need for a clear Government initiative to help the homeless is long overdue. However, I am bound to say that as it was introduced in another place, the Bill largely ignores the needs of single homeless people. That is in spite of the comments made by the noble Baroness who has put forward as good a case as she possibly could.
In particular the Bill fails to give priority need to young homeless people, along with its help for the elderly, the disabled and pregnant women. Furthermore—and here I disagree with the comments that have been made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young—the Bill was so amended last week in another place as to severely weaken its value to the very homeless people whom it sets out to help. That is my view and I shall expand on it in the remaining stages of our proceedings.
Homelessness among young single people is not a new problem. Thus, in 1973, serious concern was voiced on the subject in this House in a debate introduced in April of that year by my noble friend Lord Soper. Since then, the unemployment rate among school leavers and young people generally—and we had a very important debate on that only a few days ago—has, sadly, risen dramatically and the risks to which homeless young people are exposed have been brought home to the nation in the television film, "Johnny Go Home". Some four months ago, this House debated the housing needs of young homeless people on a Question tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. Yet the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill does not mention the specific problems of the homeless young people.

1149
I am sorry to say that the Government are failing to address their policies to the needs of a group of homeless young people whose problems are well-known and whose difficulties arouse considerable public sympathy and understanding. Meanwhile, some Members on the Opposition Benches in another place have argued that the Bill, limited as it is in its help to homeless people and ignoring as it does the needs of homeless young people for somewhere to live, goes too far. I believe that they have succeeded in amending the Bill so severely that the voluntary organisations which have so far supported the Bill now consider that unless it is amended in this House the Bill could be so toothless as to be no improvement in the present situation of the homeless. I refer, of course, to the powers given to the housing authorities to refuse to accommodate those whom they consider to have made themselves homeless intentionally or whom they consider able to help themselves.
The voluntary organisations, which have long experience of the failure of many local authorities to carry out the advice given to them in the joint circular on homelessness published in February 1974 and which have done tremendously important work, are of the view that these powers will be used by those councils which do not wish to adopt humane policies to leave homeless people in priority need on the streets. I must say that, to a considerable extent, I share that disquiet.
I should like to turn to the omission of young homeless people from the priority groups listed in Clause 1 of the Bill. I have already mentioned that the House had an important debate on this subject last March. In that debate, the noble Earl, Lord Longford—who is extremely sorry that he cannot be with us due to a prior appointment—pressed the Government to remedy this omission. Not least of the reasons for that request for this change was that a Government Working Party had itself recommended in August last year that, in framing legislation on homelessness, regard should be had to the accommodation needs of young homeless people. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who replied to the debate was rather hard to draw on this issue. Now that we see the Bill, we can understand the reason.
1150
I believe that the reluctance to give young homeless people due priority in the Bill is extremely short-sighted. Surely it makes sound economic sense, let alone social sense, to prevent young people from remaining in such a position. I appreciate that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, "All right, keep them at home". We know very well what young people are like and, of course, it is our duty to look after them. We cannot make most of these young people remain at home.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, of course I accept that. I have children of my own and know that. I know of instances where the youngsters concerned simply have no idea of what they are up against. They just do not know. If they did, some of them might stick it out with their parents a little longer or wait until they had been able to arrange something. They are carried away by the glamour of a situation which, in fact, does not emerge. That was all I was saying.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I am not complaining. I know what the noble Baroness was saying and that all of us believe in the family unit being kept together. I know that for many reasons. My own religious group holds that view and it is very dear to it. But we must face the real position which is that these young people do break away. We must do all we can to prevent them from becoming vagabonds or people who are useless to society and to themselves. It is an enormously important problem and I do not think that we have yet quite grasped it. After all, those who administer justice—that is, the courts—are concerned about it. We must realise that magistrates believe that something must be done about this problem because it is a menacing one. In the end, quite apart from any moral reasons or ethical obligations, there is the fact that it is an enormous strain and will become an even greater strain on the economy. That must be borne in mind particularly in these times when the economy is in rather a difficult state.
I was about to say that we have to prevent those who become homeless from remaining in that position and so being in grave risk of becoming a longterm drain on our statutory and voluntary

1151
social services, our penal system and our welfare benefits system. Surely we do not want to miss the opportunity that this Bill affords to stop the young homeless of today becoming the dependent vagrants of tomorrow.
The principal way in which we can prevent that happening is by specifically naming homeless people who are vulnerable because of youth in the priority categories of this Bill. For there is increasing evidence that the prevention of homelessness among the young must begin at the local level and must therefore be the clear responsibility of the local housing authorities. However they decide to carry out that responsibility, whatever arrangements they make to co-operate with voluntary societies in sharing the burden they must have the clear primary responsibility.
One of the voluntary organisations with which I am pleased to have a connection, Intake, provides hostel accommodation for young homeless people in North London. The average age of the youngsters they accommodate is 20½ years old and they receive their referrals from the West End of London through the West End Co-ordinated Voluntary Services. Their latest annual report shows that, while they have no difficulty in contacting young homeless people who needed their shelter, they have immense problems in helping their residents find permanent accommodation. Out of a sample of 48 young people, nine drifted back into the West End through lack of accommodation in the area, only five found permanent accommodation immediately on leaving the private sector, while none were able to get accommodation in the public sector. Intake further said—and they are very experienced people—that from their experience at least 50 per cent. of the young people they see would be able to re-establish themselves if they had access to somewhere secure to live.
Intake is fortunate in having a good relationship with two local authorities, the London Borough of Camden and the City of Westminster, both of whom give I some grant aid to the project. Nevertheless, Intake and the other agencies in the West End Co-ordinated Voluntary Services would be far more able to help young homeless people to re-establish
1152
themselves if the local authorities had a clear duty in law towards homeless young people. That, I would argue, is our opportunity with this Bill.
When the Standing Committee considered in another place the Housing (Homeless Persons) Bill, the sponsor of the Bill and the Minister put forward two reasons as to why they were opposed to specifying young people in the priority groups. First, they argued that at a time—and I am afraid that this argument has been used again—of scarce resources it would be asking too much of housing authorities to expect them to take on this responsibility. Secondly, they suggested that the Government are in any case unclear about what kind of accommodation young single people require, and cannot therefore advise local authorities to carry out this function. I should like to deal with both these arguments as briefly as possible.
One of the effects of the current scarcity of resources in the housing field is that local authorities are beginning to pay serious attention to ways in which the housing stock in their areas can be used more fully and effectively to meet housing needs. I do not want to exaggerate the degree to which this is happening, and I would say that local authorities' minds would be concentrated more usefully if they were to have the assistance of the Government circular on the better use of the housing stock which for many months Parliament has been promised will he issued.
However, local authorities are beginning to consider how they can let accommodation to single people in hard-to-let housing such as tower blocks, pre-war estates and walk-up blocks. Indeed some councils have gone further than that and are now allocating some of this housing to single people whom, until recently, they would not have housed. I am sure that we would all welcome these developments to which my noble friend has referred and which, of course, are extremely important; we want to see them extended. As we have already heard, the Government wish to encourage this.
The biggest single problem facing young single homeless people is not that their housing needs are not known; it is that they are denied access to most public housing. As a result of the developments I have just

1153
described, that access is beginning to open up. I agree with my noble friend that the door is being opened. By including vulnerable young people in this Bill, we would be pushing the door ajar.
Finally, it was said in the Standing Committee on the Bill in another place that there is no need to specify young people in the priority categories, because they will be covered by the phrase in Clause 1(4)(c), "or other special reason". It seems to me that those words provide local authorities with a very important power to help homeless applicants who face very special circumstances, and I am pleased that they are in the Bill. But the position of young homeless people is, in my view, more general and pressing across the board than those words allow.
The Government have argued in another place that a flexible definition of elderly people within the priority groups, and a flexible definition of disabled people, will afford maximum help to those groups. Why not, then, include within the priority groups those who are "vulnerable because of youth"? I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wade, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and also the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to consider the case most seriously so that this Bill may not just set right the problems of the homeless we have neglected in the past but may also bring help to those young people who now stand in danger of being the homeless of the future.
1.27 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I should like in my turn to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for the extremely lucid way in which he introduced this Bill to us. I do not propose to speak about the very worrying problems of homelessness, I simply want to raise one question to which my noble friend Lady Young has ready referred. Before I do so, may I make one comment. I should like to support strongly what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said when she urged that somehow young people should be warned before they leave home, if possible, about the really difficult problems they are going to meet with in finding accommodation in the big cities. The difficulty is how to find out which young people are thinking of leaving home so that they can be warned in time.
1154
I feel that, if they knew about these appalling problems, many of them would have second thoughts about leaving home. But, once having left home, perhaps for reasons of pride, they sometimes hesitate to return. Many of them are in desperate search for work, but many, as the noble Baroness said, may be leaving home either because of some temporary disenchantment at home, or perhaps simply because of the glamour of the bright lights.
The question I should like to raise is this: one of the aims of this Bill, as I understand it, is to transfer responsibility in certain cases for homeless persons from the social services to the housing authorities, and that seems a sensible aim. On Third Reading in another place amendments were made which, useful as they are, might have the effect in some cases of throwing back some of the responsibilities on the social service authorities. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wade, whether, in consultation with Ministers, he would have considered that point. One of the objects of the Amendments, I gather, was to prevent certain not strong priority cases from getting in ahead of some very high priority cases on waiting lists, and that would seem a good object. The Bill, quite rightly, provides for the transfer of both accommodation and finance from the social services authorities to the housing authorities, so that this can happen. But if, in consequence of the Bill as now drafted, in some cases the obligations would come back to the social services authorities and leave them with a residual responsibility for the homeless, they will then have no resources to cope with it.
I should like to agree, in passing, with what my noble friend Lady Young said about the necessity to take with a very large pinch of salt those words which appear far too frequently in the financial memoranda of Bills:
"There will be no net addition to public expenditure".
We have heard so often before that we know it is hardly ever true. I believe that, if this is worth doing, it is bound to involve some increase in Government expenditure.
It may be felt that the point that I am raising is a matter for the Committee stage. That may be so, but I am raising it now because it seems to some extent

1155
that it might frustrate some of the objects of the Bill, as well as throw an unreasonable financial obligation on the social services authorities, whose resources will have been transferred. All I am asking is whether, in his consultations with Ministers, the noble Lord will look into the matter I have raised and see whether there is any ground for the fear that I am advancing. If he thinks there is, I hope that he can find a way of obviating that danger without holding up the progress of the Bill.
1.31 p.m.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for the introduction of the Bill, I am more grateful to him for the compassionate introduction to what he had to say in reference to the intolerable misery that is occasioned by homelessness. For that reason I welcomed wholeheartedly the practical impact of the Bill to give legislative effect to the circular of 1974, and to secure thereby a more uniform procedure over the country in response to what it had to say. But lying behind that clarification and, I believe, improvement by the very legislative process, there is for me, and I think for many of your Lordships, a much deeper principle of which the Bill expresses at least something of an absolute requirement.
I have felt for long enough that of the trimoda necessitas of food, clothing and shelter, shelter has very often been the poor relation, regarded as of less importance than the other two. I believe that that is completely false. There is an overall principle in the Bill, though not expressed in every clause of it, that the responsibility we have for those who are homeless is that, independent of conditions of their moral value and of their probity, they have an inalienable right to somewhere to lay their heads. It is that which attracted me, and I am sure many of your Lordships, to the Bill as a measure whereby this kind of right should be the more clearly expressed and the more generously accepted.
But within the original Bill—what I might call the authorised version, of which there has now been a revised version, rather than an amended one—there were, I thought, a number of omissions, and I believe that it would be
1156
helpful to your Lordships to specify one of them, which raises the question which was so ably dealt with a few minutes ago by my noble friend Lord Janner. Obviously, to put a responsibility on a local housing authority to do something depends on whether, within the bounds of possibility, it can do it. I do not entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in her assertion that what is primarily needed is more houses. It is the adaptation and refurbishing of existing property which I believe can give considerable support to the argument that local authorities could do much more, if they were more wise in their use of available property. But the fact remains that one of the reasons for putting priorities into the Bill in its original form was that it was felt that the wholesale obligation to treat everybody who is homeless was an impractical ideal, or rather was an impossible objective to carry out.
The trouble is that I believe that in the selection of priorities the original Bill left out in large measure, as I would agree with my noble friend, the most imperative of all those occasions of domestic and homeless misery which come from the young people, when they are so bereft of a place to lay their heads. Within the Bill as it now stands I find it interesting that there is a provision for a priority group which includes those who are vulnerable for special reasons. I should like that spelt out because it would meet my case; it would meet my case entirely, because I have no doubt that, of all those who are in peril by homelessness, in many respects those who are liable to suffer the more long-lasting disasters are those who are encouraged, or committed, to homelessness in their most formative years.
As a social worker I know of evidence, that I could support by detailed example, of the way in which those who become accustomed to homelessness—a dreadful word to use in this case—in their adolescent years are very often afterwards unable to accommodate themselves to the kind of world in which it is possible for them to make their mark and to do their job. I say that not sentimentally; but if there is a special case, I believe that it is that of the young, single homeless. That was in the original Bill.

1157
My trouble is with the Amendments, which I believe have now contaminated the Bill almost to an intolerable extent. The first of the two areas where the Amendments in another place have done the most damage and have struck at the very root of the Bill is in the concept of intention. I have read it fairly carefully, and I think that the word used in this context is gobbledygook. If some people's intention is to be homeless then one does not house them; they resist that housing. If the argument is that families in Birmingham will become voluntarily homeless so that they can share the prospect of winter lets in Blackpool, I think it is absolute rubbish. I have very little sympathy with those who think that there are in large numbers families who will go through the traumatic experience of making themselves completely homeless where they live for the suspected opportunities of "bed-sits", or winter lets, in desirable resorts, if one thinks of Blackpool as a desirable resort.
I have every reason to believe that there is now the opportunity, within the code of procedure and practice, for discrimination and selectivity to be employed. But there is absolutely no need to put into the Bill a vague and insubstantial principle of intention when, in fact, that intention will be interpreted as having a moral content. Local authorities would thus find themselves bound up with the question as to whether some of these people deserve to be put into houses or other accommodation. I resent bitterly the idea that there can be introduced into the concept of the homeless as an obligation on the community the principle that there will be a selective panel which will decide whether people are really intentionally capable of responding to the benefits offered to them. This strikes at the root of the comprehensiveness of the Bill, and I hope that in Committee it will be amended or taken out.
The other aspect of the Amendments which I also find intolerable is that which introduces the principle of a means test. These Amendments say, in effect, that if it is likely, or thought possible, that those who apply have resources, or have opportunities, then they can cease to be in the priority group and can be regarded as being entitled to some help, but are not the subject of any obligation. That, too, strikes at the very principle of the Bill.
1158
I should like to remind your Lordships that in Circular 18–74 the then Government said:
"The reason for homelessness, whether eviction or housing, stress, or any other reason—even lack of foresight—should not"—
and any other reason would include a certain amount of available resources—
"be a factor in deciding whether to accept responsibility".
The acceptance of responsibility does not depend on the amount of cash which can be made available, and there is ample provision within the original Bill for the attitude, which I believe is perfectly reasonable and right, that those who themselves have some kind of resources should not necessarily be prevented from contributing what they can, and that the measure of the Bill itself makes provision for other forms of help whereby they can secure accommodation and then, indeed, be able to provide for themselves, so long as that assistance is given. These are things which, in my judgment, strike at the root principle of this Bill.
One of the things which perhaps would persuade your Lordships even if your Lordships are not persuaded as to the correctness of what I have just said, is that where you have nearly half the local authorities in the country ignoring the circular of 1974—and it is 40 per cent.—is it not likely that they will find extreme encouragement to continue so to ignore this Bill, if indeed there are weakenings in the very processes to which they have so easily been able to attach their programmes, if indeed it is not possible so to tighten the principle as to make it, as I think, unavoidable that local authorities, under statutory commandment, will be now compelled to do something more practical? And if indeed they cannot do it entirely without the support of voluntary bodies, then that brings me to the last point that I should like to make.
I am sure that without the marriage of local and community and voluntary bodies this Bill will be very largely ineffective. I am more than satisfied that here is a marriage which is demanded between enlightened social activities on the part of charities—and I speak for one. I declare an interest, though not a financial one, in Shelter. I speak for all the charities, because they have unanimously recognised the evils in this amended Bill and are in

1159
great protest against them. I would not have your Lordships in any doubt as to the intensity of their feeling that these Amendments, to which I have given reference, strike at the heart of the principle of the Bill, and therefore must be amended again if the Bill is to be included within the kind of structure to which my noble friend the Minister so eloquently, and I think properly, referred when she said that we have here an opportunity to move forward, not to the full acceptance of that which is behind this Bill and is in principle governing it, but at any rate to the procedure whereby we transfer our sense of responsibility away from care and help and into the obligation which a civilised community has for those who are homeless.
I shall of course vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. I believe it needs to be very severely amended if it is to meet the needs which were uppermost in the minds of those who first were anxious to see it at least in statutory form, and those who hope that, even amended, and imperfect as necessarily it will be, it makes a move in a direction which hitherto has not been fully understood, has not been fully implemented—the direction leading towards the elimination of this evil. I believe it can be eliminated, and I hope that this Bill will help to that end.
1.44 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, first of all I should like to say how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Wade, for introducing this Bill and for putting the matter before us so clearly and succinctly. I also feel very honoured to follow the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who has such a great knowledge of these problems and always, I think, stirs our hearts when he puts his point of view before the House. Of course, one of the disappointments, I feel, is that we had hoped that there would be some mention in the Queen's Speech with regard to homeless persons. As to my view about this Bill I am rather schizophrenic because I am anxious to provide for the homeless but, on the other side, I am very worried that the Bill will give hope to many people who will not be helped.
I think it very unfortunate that the Bill, which was introduced in the other House in February, should, at this late date only
1160
just have come to this House. I note particularly some of the remarks made in the other place in the debate on 8th July. One of them, in regard to the technical wording of the Bill, was to the effect that,
"their Lordships will consider it and try to put it right in due course, the principles now having been firmly agreed".
I should like to know, perhaps from the Minister, how much time we have to do this, because one notes that they sat late hours in the other place, and that one session lasted 27 hours. What time are we going to have to implement any of the changes which have already been adumbrated by many Members of this House?
The other matter is the question of the cost. The local authorities have definitely said that they will need between £2 million and £3 million a year to employ extra staff and undertake the necessary inquiries. I personally am very glad that the responsibility will in future be placed on the housing departments, because the social services are already very overworked. But it is absolutely essential that the housing departments should train people to do this work in future. They will have to train them to carry out investigations and to judge the various claims. To date, in many authorities, this has not been the job of individual people in the housing departments. It has been done by rent collectors, who have had to see whether the house is kept in order, and so on, but they have not had the detailed duty of going into the requirements of the homeless. They are people who are already on the housing lists of the local authorities—and I have attended quite a number of the sessions when these lists have been discussed. In fact, I am inclined to agree with the honourable Member for Islington South and Finsbury, who said on 8th July that he would never again have anything to do with so sloppy a Bill as this one. He also remarked that it should be left to the House of Lords to patch it up. Has the noble Baroness been in contact with the Members of the other House to find out what Amendments they consider we should introduce in this House which will, as they claim, patch up the Bill?
For instance, Clause 8(5) deals with the fine. It seems to me amazing that there is to be a fine not exceeding £500. How many homeless people who try to put their case over, and perhaps do so quite

1161
wrongly, will be able to pay a fine at all? Then there is vagueness in many of the clauses which I think will create difficulties. In Clause 1(1)(a), for example, it is stated,
"he, together with any other person who normally resides with him…"
Who is going to decide who "normally resides" with a person? They may be residing there at the time when the application is put in, but not be there later.
Then there are the words "reasonable", "reasonably" and "might reasonably" which occur time and time again; I think they appear 11 times in all. Reference is also made to people being threatened with homelessness. I dislike having the word "reasonable" in an Act of Parliament because, each time, one has to judge what is reasonable and what is not, and people have very varying ideas. Suppose you are threatened with, for example, homelessness, which does happen quite often. A young couple may be living with their parents, they have a quarrel and are threatened with homelessness. It is going to be very difficult to decide whether the parents are ever going to take them back, or whether they are going to be temporarily homeless.
Then, Clause 5 says:
"…it shall be the duty of the authority to take reasonable steps to prevent the loss of the property or prevent or mitigate damage to it".
How can it do so? It is very seldom known. The authority cannot inspect the property all the time. How is it to decide, until, perhaps, it gets extra staff to inspect or until persons leave the property, whether or not it is damaged?
I should like to suggest that there are really three ways to help homeless people. For example, far too many local authorities pull down areas which are planned for redevelopment. Take Islington, for example. I think that that is a very bad example of large areas of land which are now empty. I can state, having been there, that at one time the gypsies wanted to go on the land and stay there as they were homeless and had nowhere to park their vehicles. The ground was actually bulldozed in order that they should not be able to remain there, and this site is still empty. There are also sites in Westminster and, going through many boroughs, not only in London but in other areas, one finds houses with bricked
1162
up windows and barricaded doors which could be made habitable for a number of years. It is worrying when you go to areas in London, Liverpool. Manchester and Plymouth, to mention a few places, where houses have been pulled down and it is impossible in present circumstances, through lack of finance, to redevelop in he future and only weeds grow there.
I was glad to see in Clause 6 that registered housing associations are recognised, particularly as I am interested in this and—the right reverend Prelate will be pleased to know this—the Hummingbird Project in Southwark is now going on well. I think that one or two volunteer organisations have a great deal to contribute and the Government, by helping them with subsidies from the housing corporation, can do it more cheaply. In this way, I think the young single homeless can be helped. I am not with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, in what he said just now in particular, because I think this is a line of country which voluntary organisations can undertake.
I am a member of an organisation called the London Centre. We have two centres, are about to open a third, and in the autumn will open a fourth. We are very small; there are only about 14 people in each and we find that over a period of three months it is almost possible to rehabilitate them. There is a difficulty with Asian girls and with girls from Jamaica and the West Indies because they are living a different life from that which their parents live. We get a great deal of misunderstanding in these cases and they take longer. We have meetings periodically and we have found the turnover is very good. Some go back to their parents, some get married; and we have been successful in getting some set up in small flats together.
There is a great deal of advantage in having small hostels. One can take an individual interest in the boys or girls. We arrange opportunities for them to go to museums, to have a day out at Brighton or to take part in Christmas festivities. We make it into a home. It is amazing how a majority get a settled outlook on life. Also, we think that the voluntary organisations should be encouraged to buy more small properties where they can set up these boys and girls, and the Endell Street project is one that I am particularly interested in.

1163
I like to be practical. When I was in Plymouth as the Member of Parliament for that constituency I bought a house for £500. It was a large house and we made it into two flats. I got it because it was supposed to be a redevelopment area. I have no faith in redevelopment areas. I decided to risk it and to buy the house. I gave it to the Council of Social Service; it was made into two flats and we were able to help a good many homeless people. Unfortunately, only one flat is a single flat; the upstairs flat has now three separate bed-sitting rooms, housing three women with one young child each and they share a kitchen.
My Lords, homelessness is increasing. Why is it increasing? I think it is because of the broken-down extended family system. Although perhaps I should not say this, I think it is also because of the better education of women who want more opportunity to be independent. More young people come to towns because they cannot get jobs elsewhere. Also, overseas people have a different way of life from their parents.
One category which I should like to see get consideration is members of Her Majesty's Services because they have to go and live in accommodation provided by the Service concerned. They are not, therefore, in their own home town. Occasionally there is, regrettably, a deserted wife and, naturally, the Services have to ask her to leave. She does not come under the local council's list and she cannot go back to her own home town. These people are people whom one should consider as homeless, because they have this difficulty. Another difficulty in the Services is that when members go overseas and let their houses on an agreement, they can come back and find the tenant will not leave. These people also need temporary accommodation.
When I was the Member of Parliament for Devonport I used to hold "surgeries" every Saturday morning, and I telephoned the local estate agents who gave me a list of accommodation which was available. I regret that in the last three or four years when I was there they invariably had nothing to let. This proves that the Rent Act has had undesirable effects in regard to letting. I understand that the Minister recently said that about 100,000
1164
private properties are no longer on the market. This shows one of the real difficulties in getting the homeless rehoused. My Lords, I shall not vote against this Bill because it may help some people, but I think it is going to be difficult to work and, in fact, impossible if the Government do not provide some financial aid. Without this, I do not think this Bill will work at all.
1.56 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, having raised this question of homelessness more than once in your Lordships' House, I welcome this Bill. I welcome the duty it places on the housing authorities and the attempt to put some legislative force behind Circular 18/74 issued jointly. It is a pleasure to speak after my noble friend Lady Vickers, but I shall not attempt to follow her either on the Rent Acts or on single persons. I should like to approach this question from the point of view of the family and family life. May I quote briefly from something called the Cottesloe Declaration made in 1960. It was then stated:
"No stable society is possible unless the cardinal importance of family life is recognised and from the Christian point of view it is imperative that the integrity of the family be safeguarded".
That statement was made by a group of Churches who came together in South Africa faced with the brutal reality of apartheid. I submit it is just as relevant for us as it was for them in their situation.
Not long ago the most reverend Primate initiated a debate in this House about family life. Everyone got up and said what a splendid thing family life is. Some even suggested that a Minister of the Family should be appointed. This is also Jubilee Year and many tributes have rightly been paid to the united family life of our Royal Family and the example given by our Sovereign. This Bill is the acid test of whether we are determined to make possible normal family life for those who are prevented from leading it, or whether we are simply to he content with good intentions.
Let us look at where the shoe pinches or where the trouble arises for the family. First, children are in care because they are homeless. The taking into care of such children has been going on for many years

1165
and still continues. In 1973 I think it cost £20 a week to keep one child in care. I am informed that the cost now has risen to something of the order of £40 if not higher. We must avoid the taking into care of children because the parents are homeless.
Again, there is the question of split families. They can be split for many different reasons. It was the practice, which I hope has now ceased, of some local authorities to admit into temporary accommodation only the mother and children and to exclude the father. One finds many other cases where the family has had to break into two with the father going one way and the mother another simply because of lack of suitable accommodation.
Another breaking point for many families is the provision by local authorities of bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless. Here I should like to quote from what the British Association of Social Workers had to say:
"It is a tragedy that we have not learned from the dismal experience of the United States in creating welfare hotels which become breeding grounds for social problems. Far from the "holiday on the rates" which is sometimes imagined, a prolonged stay in a hotel which is overcrowded, lacks cooking facilities and which requires families to be out during the day, places an intolerable stress on any family".
Not only an intolerable stress, my Lords, but an extremely heavy expenditure on the public purse.
Again, many times we have come across instances of families being, to use the jargon expression, "shuttlecocked" from one authority to another. It has been known to happen between one country and another, and that is something perhaps inescapable in the present state of international relations, but surely it should he avoidable as between one local authority and another in our own country. The Bill, I know, contains a clause encouraging and stimulating co-operation between local authorities, and that is what I hope will follow from it. So those are the kind of instances where family life is at risk during the present situation and where I think the Bill, when passed, will bring about some improvement.
However, it is not only a question of local government duties and actions; there is a definite role to be played by central Government. First of all, there
1166
is the question of temporary accommodation. Some local authorities are very hard pressed and are bound to go on being very hard pressed for a considerable time. Surely central Government can help by making available additional resources of temporary accommodation. I am thinking particularly of disused military camps. These proved absolutely invaluable at the time of the influx of refugees from Uganda. I hope that usable accommodation will not be demolished or diverted to other purposes when it could be available and used for homeless families.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, mentioned training. Obviously this will be extremely important as more housing departments take on new duties. However, there is a great fund of experience to be tapped and it is to be found in both the voluntary sector and the public sector among those who, over the past 10 years, have been providing what is called Housing Aid. Also, I hope very much that central Government will look most seriously at the experience of those local authorities which have already put into practice the recommendations of Circular 18–74. Here I should like to quote what the chief housing officer of Wellingborough wrote in the Municipal Journal of 25th March of this year:
"The homeless are not a separate entity to be dealt with in isolation; they are simply the most acute form of housing need".
He went on to say that his district housing authority took full responsibility for homelessness from 1974, and pointed out that:
"the homeless are better catered for now than they were before 1974 and at less public expense".
The other extreme occurs, for example, in Avon County, where most housing authorities have not yet taken on the responsibility, and there it is alleged that the county council is having to spend no less than £200,000 a year on bed and breakfast accommodation for the homeless.
Reference has already been made to Amendments made to this Bill in another place. I thought that my noble friend Lady Young put a little too much emphasis on defending some of those Amendments. I say so because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, that we want to avoid value-judgments con-

1167
cerning individuals and families by local government officers and invidious distinctions between the deserving and undeserving poor. Many Amendments will be needed and they largely concern matters of definition. For example, this question already mentioned of intentional homelessness; also the definition of a homeless household; and the definition of what are families with children. The question of battered women has been mentioned before. We may well have to look in greater detail at the priority to be given to single persons who are aged or disabled. There is also the never easy question of where a family is normally resident.
I hope that this Bill can be very much improved and that the Government will be moving a number of Amendments, and that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, will be able to accept quite a number of Amendments. At all events, we must certainly avoid a situation where the Bill might be lost owing to disagreement between the two Houses. I hope that we shall soon have this Bill on the Statute Book in a suitably amended form.
2.17 p.m.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, everybody who has been involved in the tragedy of homelessness will applaud the objectives of the Promoters of this Bill: the principal objective is to lay upon the organisations representing the community the duty to provide a home for the homeless. As other noble Lords and the Minister have said, it is one of the most devastating experiences that can happen to both individuals and families. As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, it leads to other problems: children have to be separated from their parents; husband and wife are pushed apart from each other by the tensions that are engendered and the insecurity of having no home leads, particularly in children and young people, to psychological trauma, the effects of which are incalculable. I hope that a more enlightened generation will in future times think it a scandal that until the last quarter of the 20th century there was no I duty upon the organisations of the community to provide something so simple and basic as a roof even for a family that had none.
Like other noble Lords, I do not want to enter into the debate, which is really
1168
a separate debate, as to why these homelessness figures are getting larger and larger every year. As the matter was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, this much needs to be said: it is because housing has not been regarded as a scarce public resource but is rather still regarded as a private profit-making commodity that we are in the present situation of acute homelessness. Housing is a scarce public resource, to be managed by the community for the community and utilised for those who most need it. One by-product of this Bill will be an encouragement to local authorities to see themselves as having a clear duty to manage their housing stocks so that those without homes who come to their doors as homeless families will be accommodated somehow and somewhere.
Because everybody who has spoken in this debate has agreed with the remarks I have just made about the tragedy of homelessness, it becomes a duty upon the House to ensure that the Bill we pass makes effective the duty that we seek to lay on local authorities. It is our duty to make sure that it is effective not so far as the good local authorities are concerned—because they are providing for the homeless in many areas of the country without the need for this Bill and they see it as their local duty to their inhabitants—but with regard to the recalcitrant authorities, who do not see it as their duty to provide for the homeless at the moment.
We must see that those "priority need" people, who would otherwise be turned away from the council offices as being of no interest or concern, will in future be housed. Let us remember that local authorities, their officials and elected members are not ministering angels. One has only to read the reports of Shelter and other charities who have reported on the plight of the homeless to get a picture of inhumanity in response to applications—with bureaucracy run riot and people being treated as units in council offices. That can be the cause of people being compelled to suffer in the way which it is now sought to prevent by means of this Bill.
My criticism of the Bill is that the duty which is imposed contains so many loopholes. There are so many vaguely defined criteria to be fulfilled before one qualifies. The Bill is so lacking in teeth

1169
that it will do no more than dash the hopes that are being put in it and it will not achieve the objective I have outlined. One of the main faults has been commented on by many; namely, the injection of the criterion of "intentional homelessness". What does that mean, my Lords? In another place, Mr. Rossi spoke of people who defaulted on their rent. Thousands of families are evicted from homes because, for a variety of reasons, they default on their rent. He talked also of persons who take short holiday lets and would be called "intentional homeless" because they took on a letting which they knew they would be kicked out of in three months' time. But hundreds of people are driven to take this kind of short-term accommodation.
Nor is it not just a question of what it means. No doubt the Promoters of the Bill, having taken advice, will say it means that only people with some deliberate motive to jump the queue are covered by the phrase. But who is going to determine what it means? Not a court, not this House, but officials in a council office—often officials (because we are talking about the recalcitrant authorities) who know that their authority has determined to adopt a cheeseparing attitude to the homeless and who want to pick holes in every application that comes to them. It becomes worse when you read in the Bill that it is not just a question of turning away the intentional homeless: the applicants have to satisfy the authority that they have not become intentionally homeless. They have to prove a negative. How differently that will be interpreted from area to area around the country!
Similar criticisms can be made of the "can probably help themselves" provision. As the noble Lord, Lord Soper pointed out, that is an encouragement to such local authorities as wish to be cheeseparing to force any applicant for a home to pauperise himself before qualifying. One can probably obtain accommodation because one has £200 of savings in the Post Office and one can be accommodated in a hotel down the road for two or three months before qualifying for help. That could be ruled by the local authority to come within this particular clause.
1170
In other parts of the Bill there are equally vague criteria: I will mention only two of them. There is the "vulnerability" criterion. Why not just say "people who are old" and not "people who are vulnerable because they are old"? Why not say "people who are mentally ill" and not "people who are vulnerable because they are mentally ill"? Because that enables a local authority that wants to cheesepare to say, "We think you can fend for yourself: you are not sufficiently vulnerable".
The other matter that struck me as extraordinary was that in order to qualify as a homeless person, if you are threatened with violence in the home in which you lived, you have to show not only that someone is going to threaten you with violence but that he is likely to carry out the threat. You will have this picture of local authority officials, with their own prejudices and subjective views on matrimonial or domestic life, trying to analyse whether the man in the house is likely to carry out a threat of violence.
Some of these vaguenesses can be cured by Amendment, but some will be bound to remain in the Bill. Any measure like this is bound to contain within it some area of doubt where things can go wrong. I should like to put forward for the consideration of the House a way round the difficulties, and indeed the conflict, generated in the course of this debate between those who want many restrictive provisions in the Bill and those who do not. This Bill provides a duty which in some cases is a clear duty and in other cases is not so clear. It provides, very creditably, for the local authority to house people temporarily while they are making up their minds as to whether or not the duty is owed. It provides also, very creditably, for reasons to be given to the applicant if he or she is rejected. But what happens then? If the local authority gets it wrong, where does the applicant go? If a local authority says, "We don't believe you are genuine; you are intentionally homeless", or "We don't believe you are vulnerable", or if they make some other error, whether through prejudice or out of sheer incompetence, there is no remedy at all in this Bill. There is no tribunal to which a rejected applicant can turn. There is no place where justice can be obtained. No doubt, a person will have to sit in the

1171
street, carrying a placard saying to the councillors who pass by "Please help me", and that is unlikely to be good enough.
Would it not he very much better, and alleviate some of the injustices which will occur because of these vague criteria, for some kind of appeal mechanism to be injected into this Bill, so that someone who was rejected could go, within a certain time, to the local county court and ask for a declaration that he or she is a homeless person, or a priority need person; with a procedure by which, within a few weeks, there could be some kind of hearing before a county court judge, so that conflicts between homeless persons and an authority could he ironed out?
There are precedents for this. For example, in recent years, thank goodness! we have determined that anybody who is destitute shall have the right to an income, and we call it supplementary benefit. If someone is aggrieved with the determination which is made when he applies for that income, there is a tribunal to which he can go. But under this Bill there is nothing. I hope that the sponsors of the Bill can advise me whether any legal machinery is available for someone who is hard done by, or wrongly refused housing, when he is homeless. My view is that there is nothing which would be at all effective, just some vague possibility of an application to the High Court for an order of mandamus, which would be far too late to do any good.
Some of us who are worried about the vaguenesses in the Bill, and the opportunities which they give for councils to evade their responsibilities, would be much more reassured if there was some kind of appeal machinery. I certainly propose to put forward an Amendment to that effect, and I hope that both the Promoters and the Minister will look seriously at the possibility. The county courts can be mobilised at short notice to hear such a case, it would not be a very difficult hearing and there should he provision for the person to be kept in stop-gap accommodation until such a hearing had taken place. With such a tooth in it, this Bill would he considerably better.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I
1172
ask him one small question about his statement that there are thousands of people who are compelled to take short lets? My noble friend is a lawyer, and when such statements are made we should like to have a few figures.
Lord GIFFORD: My Lords, the noble Baroness has only to look in the advertisement columns of the evening papers to know that hundreds of property owners are advertising holiday lets. Some are genuine, some are not. The ones that are genuine are short lets, which give no security in the end. It is of those that I was thinking.
2.23 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I have enjoyed listening to the debate. I have sat through 90 per cent. of it, and I went out only when I had to because of another duty which it was necessary for me to perform. I see no point in reiterating what has been said over and over again. This is a Second Reading, not a Committee stage of the Bill, and much of the discussion that we have had has dealt with Committee stage points. That is not at all wrong. Those points have been put forward in a humanitarian way by people who know what they are talking about. Furthermore, may I point out to the other place, which sometimes thinks that we do not work here, that nearly everyone here today has come at considerable expense from all over Britain to speak on behalf of the homeless. Consequently, there are no ulterior motives whatsoever in the contributions that are being made.
Having heard the speeches, I want to ask questions in a general rhetorical way, which can be dealt within Committee. First, if organisations such as Campaign for the Homeless and Roofless, the Child Poverty Action Group, the Public Health Advisory Service, Shack, Shelter, Housing, the Housing Aid Centre, the National Campaign for the Homeless, the Catholic Housing Aid Society, the National Women's Aid Federation and others are concerned about this Bill, which they all applaud, because it has been a little butchered in the other place, then there must he something in it which needs our attention.
There was a debate in the other place—and I spent 27 or 28 years in the other

1173
place—and a lawyer, who said that, if we are not careful, people who are shacking up on the beach and having a cheap holiday at Blackpool will be able, under this Bill, to go to a local authority and demand shelter, must have been talking through his hat. Anybody who has had experience of local government knows quite well that there are safeguards against that kind of sharp practice. If people think that "holiday cowboys" will be expecting local authorities to shack them up for a short period of time, then they have not read the Bill properly and do not understand what responsible civil servants and local government officials know about the problems of local government.
In order to cut down my speech to about seven minutes, I should like to summarise the key issues. There has been talk about the exclusion from the priority groups, who must he housed by councils if they are homeless, of people judged to have become homeless intentionally. That should be corrected. We halve had an excellent speech from one with a trained legal mind, pointing out some of the ridiculous features of this provision. Apart from the difficulty of defining the word "intentional", we know from experience that this will lead to hundreds, if not thousands, of genuinely homeless people being refused accommodation by councils which are reluctant to discharge their responsibilities.
Then there is the exclusion from the priority groups of people considered able, with advice and assistance, to fend for themselves. This provision will result in the widespread, crude means testing of homeless people, which makes me shudder. I lived through that means testing and saw it as a youngster, and never again want to see bureaucrats given this power. I have seen a man who had been means tested take to a pokey little Welsh cinema a tin of fruit that had been given to him by the guardians of the parish for his wife. He offered the attendant the tin of fruit, so that his wife could see the picture—this was before the days of talkies—and not only did the attendant not take it, but he reported to the guardians what had happened. There is no joy in the means test. That really happened in those dreary old days. I do not want to see anything that smacks of the possibility of a means test. There is no need to elaborate that point.
1174
I should now like—and I am still within my racing distance—to look at the report of the Association of County Councils. Some of your Lordships will have had the report and a letter from the Association, with which I am pleased to be associated. They wish to draw the attention of this noble House to some of the untoward consequences arising from the Amendments made in the other place, and the Amendments are what we have just been talking about. If the Association of County Councils are concerned about these, then it is the duty of Parliament to test their criticisms and see whether they are worthy of adjustment and alteration. When we have organisations which are smack up, against people in distress, we should listen to them. The consequences could have disastrous results.
I will throw away 90 per cent. of the notes I have made and turn to the Schedule. By the Schedule we are abolishing parts of the National Assistance Act. I do not have with me the National Assistance Act, but I shall have it to hand when we reach the Committee stage. It is wrong to abolish parts of the National Assistance Act by this Schedule.
May I now turn to my noble friend's contribution to the debate regarding appeals. I was a Minister, and my noble friend will know that it is possible to appeal regarding supplementary benefit and national assistance. However, I take his point that we ought to try to adopt a simpler legal approach so that it is possible for the layman to get an adjustment without the paraphernalia of tribunals. If I may coin a word, the "tribunalisation" of English law in the last 40 years has meant that when the layman has broken his arm, or cut his leg with a scythe in a field, or when a lump of coal has fallen upon him he is very often confronted with a chairman and a skilled lawyer. The man is lost because the gods have not gifted him with the art of standing up to legal cross-examination. Our "tribunalisation" of English law sometimes defies justice. There is a famous lawyer sitting opposite who is listening to me. He may not agree with me, because he is in the higher realms of the legal world. However, I believe that the uninitiated layman loses time after time because he is overwhelmed

1175
by the awe and majesty of the law in a private room—sometimes even in the back of a pub—where the so-called tribunal cross-examines him. That system should come to an end.
Why should I speak any longer? I have already spoken for nine minutes and I should only reiterate points which have already been made. However, the point must be taken that we must ensure that the Bill is not destroyed by certain people who would like to destroy it. I see that my noble friend Lord Janner is sitting over there. He covered all the legal points, and there was practically no need for anybody else to say anything about them. I am grateful that my noble friend covered those points in the way that he did. When we reach the Committee stage, I hope that we shall find constructive answers to the Amendments.
2.34 p.m.
The LORD BISHOP of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, time is getting on and most of the points have already been covered. I shall, therefore, make a very short speech. Like many of my colleagues on the Bishops' Bench, I am dissastisfied with the Bill as it stands. I shall vote for it but I hope that it will be amended. My first criticism relates to the priority groups, especially to young people. It was not so many months ago that we had a debate in which frequent reference was made to "Johnny Go Home". Some of us went to see a repeat of that programme in our own cinema, together with Members of the other House. Horror was expressed on that occasion. It was inconceivable to think that young people could be treated in that way, and many of us said that we must accept responsibility for them. Little, however, seems to have happened. We tried to get British Rail to give advice to young people about coming to London so that they would not be thrown on to the streets, but we received little enough encouragement from them. Little seems to have been done to come to grips with this problem, although its size is tremendous.
I do not know how many of those who have been responsible for the Amendments have gone out on to the streets at night and met some of the young people who roam around the city in their hundreds during
1176
the early hours of the morning. I encourage my own young clergy to do what I call "take the plunge". They are shoved out on to the streets of London for two days with only £1 in their pocket. It is a shattering experience for them all. Certainly they are very careful afterwards about the criticisms which they make regarding people who are supposed to be intentionally homeless and enjoying what is supposed to be the fun of wandering around. My first point, therefore, is that when we come to the Amendments I hope that we shall have another look at our responsibilities towards the younger generation.
Secondly, may I deal with those people who are supposed to be intentionally homeless. Near to where I live in Balham there is a unit for homeless families, and I know something about the problem. I cannot think of anybody whom I have seen there who has not been utterly demoralised by the experience. How anybody could believe that someone would intentionally wish to go to that settlement is, to me, utter nonsense. Probably this was written by a person who has never been homeless for a single day in his life. As for young people, go and speak to them at Centre Point and the New Horizon to find out how they react. It may have been fun on the first day when they left home and a bit of an adventure but, my goodness! that passes very quickly. After one night on the soup run the excitement goes. Then go to St. Mungo's night shelter and find out what happens after a few days or weeks of homelessness.
My third point deals with resources. I find that this is a very difficult point to understand and I hope that the Government will try to explain it to me—if not now, certainly when we reach the Committee stage. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, gave the impression that this is an almost insoluble problem on account of the lack of resources, yet we are given contrary information by people who are supposed to supply reliable facts. In the Green Paper on Housing Policy we are told that there is a surplus of housing in Britain, even in the densely populated metropolitan areas. Similarly, the Greater London Council studies have revealed that there is a minimum of 100,000 empty properties in London alone. If a situation of scarcity existed, then the caution shown by the Bill's opponents would be justifiable, but

1177
the facts simply do not sustain such a charge. In its original form, and possibly in a more radical form still, without such narrow priority groups, the Bill could provide a stimulus to more responsible usage of the resources which we already have.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate would allow me to interrupt him for a moment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young. The point which she was making, and which she would make if she were here, is not that there is no surplus in many places. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate is right about that. However, one of the effects of the Rent Act 1974 has been to reduce the access of people to this surplus stock. This is why I agree with my noble friend when she says that we must find ways of making better use of our stock and getting greater access to it, in both the public and the private sector.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, if I have done the noble Baroness an injustice I most certainly apologise, and if she be right that the Rent Act has brought this about, then it can apply only to a certain number of those properties. I cannot believe that the Rent Act accounts for 100,000 empty properties.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I wonder whether, as he did ask for information, the right reverend Prelate will give way. I really must reiterate the point that the other side of the coin of the Rent Act, to which reference is continually being made, is that more people would be evicted and that would add to the numbers of homeless. The reason for the Rent Acts is to give security.
Also, as the right reverend Prelate has raised the question, he may like to know that it is in fact those housing authorities with the most severe problems generally which so far have done most to help the homeless. They have managed with distinction and I am sure they w ill continue to do so. So the right reverend Prelate is right when he speaks about the numbers of houses. Also, if I may just add something else in order to get it on the record, it is estimated that, because of the mobility of certain people, about 4 to 5 per cent. of properties must be
1178
empty in order to cater for people who are moving about. Over and above that, it is perfectly true that better management, better forward planning and better use of existing stock could help enormously. That is really what we hope this Bill will urge on authorities.
The Lord Bishop of SOUTHWARK: My Lords I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that information. My final point is that the Bill strikes me as a "bitty" Bill; a Bill which passes the buck, and which enables people to evade their responsibilities. I want the Bill as amended to be a Bill which is marked not by grudging consent but by real compassion. As it now stands the Bill desperately needs the breath of life that comes from that genuine compassion which feels for and cares for those who are in this pitiful state.
2.43 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will be indulgent towards me if I seek briefly to reply on behalf of my noble friend Lord Wade. My first duty is to present his profoundest apologies to your Lordships' House for his unavoidable absence. He has an annual lecture to deliver later this afternoon at a University in the North of England; of course, he wanted to stay for the whole of this debate and he would have been able to do so had it not been for the somewhat unanticipated length of proceedings on the economic situation that prevented our starting as punctually as we might have done this morning.
My second task is to say on his behalf how very much he appreciates the contributions that have been made by all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussions this afternoon. A number of forceful and constructive criticisms of this Bill have been made from both sides of the House. I hope that your Lordships will think it better that I should not seek now to deal with them but should undertake that they will be given the most careful consideration by the sponsors of the Bill, by my noble friend, and, I know, by the Government, before the Committee stage is reached. We look forward in due course to a constructive Committee stage which will deal with many of the points that have been raised today.

1179
It is clear that this Bill cannot solve all the distressing problems of those who become homeless. We have to keep in mind the financial constraints which are imposed at the moment by the availability or otherwise of resources; we have to recognise that some of the most difficult cases of homelessness are those in which merely providing accommodation will not be sufficient but where in addition, it is necessary to provide some kind of support or care. We believe that this Bill is a step in the right direction. We hope it will be possible to improve it. Naturally, it will not be the last measure on the subject of homelessness, but we believe that it is important that it should be placed on the Statute Book. It is a worthwhile measure and one which, in these difficult times, will be of crucial importance to a significant number of people. My Lords, I ask that the Bill be read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

OTTER HUNTING REGULATION BILL [H.L.]
2.46 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Regulation of Otter Hunting]:
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("referred to in subsections (3) and (4) below.")
The noble Earl said: This is purely a drafting Amendment, but since your Lordships agreed at the Second Reading of this Bill that we should wait for this stage until the report of the Joint Otter
1180
Group of the NCC and SPNC was received, and that group reported in June on the status of the otter, I think it might be as well if we were to consider that before we proceed any further. The group reported that the otter was widely distributed but uncommon in some areas; that there was a normal population in Scotland, and probably in Wales; that the surveys made in two counties found that it was at the normal 1950 density in Suffolk at about one otter for 10 kilometers of river and rather less than half that in Norfolk, where it is obviously rather rare. They finally reported that there was not enough evidence to support the otter being placed on Schedule 1 to the Conservation of Wild Animals and Wild Plants Act 1975; that it certainly should not be put on the Schedule for one or two places where it was undoubtedly rare, and certainly that Scotland should not be excluded.
They concluded that quite clearly some form of new legislation was necessary to cover animals such as the otter, about which we are all disturbed but which they—and I must confess I myself—are satisfied cannot be dealt with under the 1975 Act. As a naturalist, I agree entirely with them. Not being gainfully occupied I have been able to spend a considerable time trying to find evidence about this creature, and certainly the evidence which I have found supports all their conclusions.
From the point of view of animal welfare I welcome particularly their statement that the otter should not go on the Schedule for parts of the country and, in particular, that it should not go on the Schedule excluding Scotland, because it is relatively abundant there. All that would happen would be that otter hunting would be transferred to Scotland from England; there would be no control over it unless this Bill was passed. I would just remind your Lordships that the criteria for putting an animal on the Schedule to the 1975 Act are twofold: firstly, the animal must be exceedingly rare; and, secondly, it must be being killed or taken to such an extent that its status as a British species is endangered. Quite clearly, that is not so. With that as our background, perhaps we can look at the Amendments to this Bill. I beg to move that Amendment No. I be agreed to, since it is a purely drafting Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Government can see that some useful purpose would perhaps be served by this Amendment, and we are certainly not opposing it. I only want to say to the noble Earl that it has not been possible at this stage to get Parliamentary draftsmen to look at this. We do not anticipate difficulty, but if there is any problem about the drafting I will let the noble Earl know. Meanwhile, we are not opposing the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
2.52 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 21, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
("(d) a condition that dogs shall be prevented from actively pursuing an otter by sight or by following the scent left by any otter which is known to be on the move in front of them at such a distance as would, in the opinion of the otter committee, terrify the otter if dogs continued to follow its scent.")
The noble Earl said: On Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that his information was that an otter's scent could be followed for a time without disturbing the otter, and that, of course, is because the otter is a nocturnal animal. The only trace of it which can be found by a river during the daytime is the scent which he left the night before, and while that scent is being followed the animal is asleep in its refuge. What the noble Lord and a number of other noble Lords objected to was the fact that the otter would be terrified if it was being pursued by hounds: one or two other noble Lords objected on conservation grounds, that an otter which had been chased up and down a river would desert it for—I think the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said—up to four months.
If this Amendment is accepted, no otter will be chased, no otter will be terrified, no otter will be disturbed by being pursued. Otter hunting as we know it, that is to say, chasing the otters with hounds, will come to an end; that indeed was the recommendation of the joint committee to which I have just referred, who say that in the absence of legislation it is preferable that there should be a voluntary ban on otter hunting for conservation reasons.
We know that this Bill cannot become law this Session, but if we can get it satisfactorily amended, where necessary, today, it will be printed and we can recommend to hunts and to owners of riverside land that it should voluntarily be the condition under which otter hunting takes place. I hope the hunts may follow this Bill, if only on 50 per cent. of the days that they hunt and over 50 per cent. of the country over which they hunt. I think perhaps that would be more useful than adopting it altogether. We could then compare what happens in each of those two areas, and see how valuable it is. I beg to move.
The Earl of LISTOWEL The Earl of LISTOWEL moved Amendment No. 3 as an Amendment to Amendment No. 2:
Leave out ("on the move").
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 3 I hope I may be allowed to speak also to Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. All the other Amendments that stand in my name on the Marshalled List are in fact Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I shall, therefore, not move them. I hope that these Amendments of mine may be acceptable because they are intended to serve the purpose the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has in mind in his Amendments, which mine amend. As he has just said, he wants to prevent otters from being caught and killed by hounds when they are following the fresh scent of any otter "known to be on the move in front of them". But, surely, the otter is no less likely to be caught and killed when hounds pick up a fresh scent and it is not on the move but resting up in a hole or under cover on the river bank. Indeed, the otter would be more likely to be caught if it was resting and had not got time to get into the water and escape.
The effect of my Amendments would be to stop the hounds following a fresh scent of any otter, either on the move in front of them or resting in front of them on the river bank, by having them called off by the master. By removing the words "on the move" the wording becomes "any otter which is known to be in front of them" in the course of the hunt. The noble Earl's Amendments as they stand will not avoid the risk of killing an otter when it is resting at a short distance, as it may be, in front of the hounds. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: The great difficulty about the noble Earl's Amendment is that otter hunters would then have to take some steps to find out whether in fact an otter was in front of them. I could perhaps explain that more clearly by saying what exactly happens when hounds which are following the drag left by an otter the night before come up to the place where he is lying, if indeed he is lying alongside the river. In a number of cases, we know, of course, that otters lie in reed beds or alder carr some way away from the side of the river. Over most of England the rivers have fairly rocky banks. An otter will be lying in a cavern in the rock, perhaps a cavern in the roots of a tree, the entrance to which is too small to allow the entry of an otter hound. Your Lordships will see that the Minister can forbid the use of terriers. That otter will stay put; he will know that he is quite safe. It will be obvious when the hunt get up to him that he is there, but he will not he in danger. That is what happens with the vast majority of rivers in this country.
In the rivers in my part of the world, and in Norfolk and in few other parts, the banks are not rocky. The otter may find a hole in the roots of a tree, where what I have just said applies, but the chances are that he will be disturbed when the hounds come up to him. I think this is the only case which is worrying the noble Earl opposite. The otter will then jump into the water. The noble Earl is fearful that he might be jumped on by the hounds before he gets into the water. The information I have been able to obtain is that that is a very rare occurrence indeed, that the otter will be warned of the approach of the hounds by hearing them when they are within a few yards; I do not mean within ten yards, but within a hundred yards or so. The otter w ill jump into the water, will swim across to the other bank, and he will then be known to be on the move and the huntsmen can act accordingly.
I do not think that what the noble Earl fears is likely to occur more than once in a blue moon. I have heard of one case. I think he can be assured that, if it is left as I have suggested, the otter will be quite safe. The alternative is that the huntsman has to send someone ahead, probably with terriers and perhaps with one or two hounds, to discover whether an otter is
1184
lying under the bank or in what is called a couch near the bank. That is almost exactly the same as following with the main pack. I have been able to discover no other way of finding out whether there is an otter in front of the hounds, and it may, of course be miles ahead of the hounds.
Lord CRAIGTON: I was worried when I saw the first attempt at this Amendment by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, so I tabled an Amendment. But at his second attempt my noble friend answered my worries. I have looked carefully at the Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and it seems to me that the answer, like so many points in the Bill, is that it is probably right in some areas and wrong in others. I have tabled a new clause which answers all my hopes and fears about the Bill, and on the whole I support my noble friend Lord Cranbrook.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I find myself in an embarrassing position, because I know very little about natural life in the way that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, does. In fact, I must confess that much of what I now know I have learned from him. I am grateful to him for all the instruction—both direct and indirect—which he has given to me. However, I believe that the Bill is really concerned with the method of protecting otters.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has introduced the Bill essentially for two reasons. Perhaps I may interpret what he has done. The first is to protect otters. As I indicated on Second Reading, I have not regarded this as a very good way in which to protect otters. Nevertheless, I accept his essentially absolutely worthy motives in this matter. However, the noble Earl has also been concerned with the question of learning more about otters. Part of the Bill is concerned with the whole problem of finding out much more about the otter than we already know.
My noble friend Lord Listowel has tabled an Amendment in order to make more definite the protection of otters. From what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said, I cannot help feeling that there is nothing in this Amendment which is essentially undesirable. I believe that the Amendment goes some way towards

1185
further protecting the otter. That is an essential part of the noble Earl's Bill.
If one is dealing purely with physical phenomena—the matters in which I am moderately versed and which I have studied most of my life—it is possible, within certain restrictions, to make fairly clear statements as to what will happen if we do something. That is the nature of physical science; if one puts forward a certain proposition, one can deduce from it what will happen. In other words, if one is examining nature by the methods and the laws of physical science, on the whole cause leads to effect. But it is very clear that, in the area of animal nature and of the living world as a whole, it is extremely difficult to make predictions of cause and effect.
The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has said that this might occur once in a blue moon. I am not an astronomer and I am not very certain of the quantitative significance of a blue moon. I do not know how often one can say that the moon is blue; I suppose that it depends upon the eye of the observer. Consequently, when the noble Earl makes a remark like that I am left wondering what he means by it. If a blue moon may occur a few times in one's lifetime, it means that this particular incident may occur a few times in one's lifetime. I think that one should not make remarks like that when one is legislating in such a vague way. It seems that one is really asking: is there a chance that this could happen and what is that chance? Is the chance one in 10, one in 100, one in 1,000? One must try to be a little more quantitative. From what I have heard so far, I think that the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Listowel was worthy of the consideration of this House.
3.8 p.m.
Lord DENHAM: I ought to make it clear once again at this stage that, although I am speaking from this Dispatch Box, T am speaking for myself alone. It has always been a tradition in the Party which I support that the Party, as a whole, do not take a view on matters of this kind but leave it to individual consciences. Having said that, I will come to the Amendment.
My noble friend's Bill, as it is at present before us, seems to say that otter hunting
1186
is all right provided you do not actually kill an otter. His Amendment now makes it that otter hunting is all right providing you do not actually hunt an otter. It is, to my mind, getting a little difficult. I think that my noble friend's Amendment is impossible to enforce. Nobody will be able to say, when hounds are hunting, whether they are in fact hunting a mink, perhaps, instead of an otter. A lot of otter hunt packs hunt mink. It will be very difficult to enforce, and laws that are difficult to enforce are, by and large, bad laws.
I think I like the Amendment to the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, even less. I am not quite clear that the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, does anything at all, because, by taking out the words "on the move", in order to offend against this you have to know while you are hunting the drag exactly where the otter is in front of you, and you have to know that it is at such a distance as would terrify the otter if the dogs were following its scent. I do not see that this could ever happen because while the otter is holed up and while you are following the drag you do not know where it is, and so therefore I think removing the words "on the move" makes no difference at all.
Although I dislike these Amendments, and the Amendment to the Amendment, and I do not think they improve the Bill, I do not propose to divide the Committee. I very much hold the view that otters should not be killed unless they are, in that particular place, a pest and for that reason need killing. Nothing in these Amendments helps that. The Bill, as it stands, will encourage packs of otter hounds to conform to this ruling, as indeed they are doing already. I hope that my noble friend will not press his Amendment, and I hope that if he does the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will not press his Amendment to the Amendment. As I say, even if they do I do not propose to ask your Lordships to divide on them.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I do not wish to enter the controversy which is obviously apparent at the present moment, nor do I want to get up time and time again to make comments on behalf of the Government. Your Lordships will recall that, during the Second Reading debate, on behalf of the Government I

1187
expressed what I think could be summed up as being the attitude of benevolent neutrality, and I indicated that some redrafting of the Bill might well be necessary if this is to reach the Statute Book in an acceptable form. It is because there are a number of things relating to not only this Amendment but Amendments Nos. 3, 5, 6, 8 and 9 that I want to intervene at this stage to prevent my getting up more often than is necessary; and my intervention really concerns (shall I say?) the use and the meaning of certain words.
I must draw your Lordships' attention to the difficulties to which this and related Amendments, the ones that I have mentioned, give rise. I appreciate that the noble Earl has the interests of the otter at heart. I have known him for a good many years. I know his reputation in this field. I lived in East Anglia for some years and I know the high esteem in which the noble Earl is quite rightly held. No one can doubt that for one moment.
The Government have to consider the consequences of these alterations to the Bill from the point of view, first of all, of those whose hitherto lawful activities might bring them into contact with the criminal law and, in addition, of those who have the task of enforcing the law. I am referring to the police and the courts. In the first place, let us remember that the replacement for the present paragraph (d) and the additional new paragraphs (e) and (f), which are Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 on the Marshalled List, are to be mandatory conditions. There is thus no question of the matters referred to in the Amendments being merely matters to which the otter committee, which is to be established under the Bill, can have regard. The words state quite firmly:
"… there shall be included among such conditions:"
This is to be mandatory upon the otter committee. If it is proposed under a Bill to set up an otter committee to consider all these matters, one wonders whether it is wise, or advisable, to tie the committee's hands by imposing on it certain mandatory conditions. Given the mandatory nature of the conditions, and the fact that an expert committee is to be given the task of devising them, your Lordships might have thought it desirable to specify in the Bill the nature of such
1188
conditions in the broadest possible terms by reference to the purpose, rather than to spell them out in detail.
It appears—and I say this very kindlily—that here the noble Earl seems to be doing the work for the committee, the committee which he wishes to have established under the Bill, and which we support. I should like to set out a few of the difficulties that we see in the Amendments. Let us take the first circumstances in which dogs are to be called off. The dogs are to be:
"… prevented from actively pursuing an otter by sight …".
That does not present too great a difficulty. The otter is spotted, and the dogs are whipped in, though I note that there is some disagreement as to whether this can be done effectively.
The second circumstances in which the dogs are to be called off is when they are about to pursue an otter:
" … by following the scent left by any otter which is known to be on the move in front of them"—
that is, the dogs—
"at such a distance as would, in the opinion of the otter committee, terrify the otter if dogs continued to follow …."
What do we mean by "distance"? What do we mean by "terrify"? I just do not know, nor do the Government know. Again, this is a matter which ought to be left to the otter committee. The otter committee has to decide when formulating the conditions for otter hunting, what is a suitable gap. Is this to be measured in metres or in yards? I am not being facetious; I am merely trying to point out the difficulty which the otter committee will face. There is the question of the suitable distance between the otter and the dogs in relation to the otter being pursued and then being terrified. I am not a hunting man, and I find it very difficult to understand how this matter can be satisfactorily determined.
In the course of a hunt dogs and otter—one or other, or both dogs and otter—are on the move, and they must in the nature of things be at varying distances from each other at different times. There would, I imagine, be few occasions when the distance is measurable. How is it to be measured? Is it to be measured in a straight line along the ground, or in terms of the centre of a river? Is it to be

1189
measured around, over, or through obstacles? I ask this because this is one of the questions which the otter committee may have to answer, if the noble Earl is successful with the Amendments. Perhaps this matter would present the committee with no great difficulty—I just do not know—and perhaps I am being unnecessarily alarmist.
I would ask your Lordships also to ponder the position of those who will he called upon to observe this condition, those who will have to consider the possibility, or the reality, of a prosecution for breach of it, and those who will have the task of determining whether, on the evidence, such a breach has in fact been proved. I should like to suggest to your Lordships some of the questions that may need to be asked and answered. I have already referred to the difficulties of determining the distance and the difficulties regarding the word "terrify". Is the animal terrified because it runs away or because it swims away? Can it be established beyond reasonable doubt that the scent followed by the dogs was that of a particular otter, that is the one in danger of being terrified, and not an otter which has passed along the same route earlier?
I know that this sounds facetious, but these are matters which must be determined, and they must not be determined merely reasonably accurately, but, as I understand it, accurately. As I said before, the Government do not object to this Bill. This is not a ploy to upset the Bill, nor an attempt to destroy it; but that is not to say that we have not a responsibility to see that it will work if it is passed. As your Lordships know far better than I do, the Government have a responsibility to see that a Bill is workable.
I do not want to say anything further other than to indicate that, while we are at the moment happy to leave the decision on most of today's Amendments to your Lordships, I wanted to take this opportunity to point out some of the difficulties that the Government feel there may well be on the question of explanation and interpretation. I believe that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has had discussions with Home Office officials on his aims. If he feels that there is any validity in the points that I have tried to make briefly, then let me say that we would be very glad to meet him again—two or three times, if
1190
necessary—before the Report stage. But, having said that, it is a matter for your Lordships to decide, and not for the Government. I merely wanted to point out the difficulty that the Government find themselves in at present; and I am most grateful to your Lordships.
3.22 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Perhaps the noble Earl opposite will allow me to come in here on his Amendment for just one moment. I can say to him that, if he feels very strongly about it, I do not feel very strongly against it. For instance, if it was a full Committee I would not think of dividing the Committee against him. I think it would also be convenient if I replied now to one or two of the points which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has made on behalf of the Government. First, we are all agreed, I think, that we want to avoid, first, the killing of otters and, second, the terrorising of otters, although that is not a phrase I would use; I lifted it from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, on Second Reading. He raised doubts as to whether it was possible to find out if the otter was within such a range of the hounds that the otter committee could think that it would be terrified. Quite clearly, if it is within 10 yards it will certainly be frightened; if it is at 1,000 yards, it certainly will not be frightened.
In former days, I am informed, when otter hunters tried much harder than they do now to kill the otter, they kept a man walking a few hundred yards ahead who kept his eyes open continuously to see whether the otter was on the move. In those days, if he saw an otter he called the hounds on to it so that they got on to it quickly and had a greater ease of killing it, instead of having to puzzle out the line over that few hundred yards which he was kept ahead, which would have taken some little time. I do not think it will be difficult for the otter committee to decide whether that distance ahead is 100, 200 or 400 yards. It will be something of that nature, I suspect, when it will be quite clear that the otter is really frightened. You can keep just such a man walking ahead today. His duty will not be to call the hounds off, but, directly he sees an otter on the move, to go straight back towards the hounds and prevent them from following on any further.

1191
Although the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, did not specify what he meant by "terrifying", on Second Reading he used that phrase and I lifted it from him. I think that it might be up to him to define what he means by it instead of asking me. I am pretty certain that it would not be difficult for the otter committee to decide the range at which the animal is terrified. As I have explained, it will be fairly easy to keep a man ahead to find out when an otter is on the move. If the noble Earl opposite prefers his Amendment to my definition, I should have no strong objection to it. I think that, if mine is left as I have put it, there will be less interference with the otter, but I should not think of opposing it if he feels strongly about it.
Lord FORBES: May I suggest that it may be helpful to the Committee if the Minister indicates whether the Government are likely to bring in their own Bill to conserve the otter?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I have no reason to suppose that that is the intention of the Government.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on my Amendment; and we discussed the noble Earl's Amendments at the same time. I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Wynne-Jones, for his support. My noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell drew your Lordships' attention to the difficulties that are inherent in the enforcements of the Amendments of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook; and the same difficulties would apply to my Amendment. I pointed out on Second Reading that I thought that the noble Earl's Bill was unenforceable. That seemed to me to be a Second Reading objection. I did not think that it was answered by the noble Earl. But I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, raised these points in the hope that the difficulties might be overcome by the noble Earl and, in that spirit, I am sure that they are relevant to the Committee stage of the Bill.
May I return to my own Amendment to the noble Earl's Amendment? I appreciate the practical difficulty, to which the noble Earl drew your Lordships' attention, of finding out before the hunt if an otter is likely to be found resting in the path that the hounds are likely to follow but, unless
1192
this practical difficulty can be overcome, the purpose of the noble Earl's Amendment, which is to prevent the killing of otters when the hounds are following a fresh scent—he made that quite clear—may be defeated.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: It is to prevent the terrifying of otters as well.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: I did not mean to exclude that. Of course, I agree entirely with the noble Earl, although I agree with my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell that the difficulty of any committee deciding when an otter had been terrified would be very considerable. But the main object of the noble Earl is to prevent the killing of otters—which is also the object of otter hunts generally, and has been since 1967.
But it seems to me that, as was admitted by some of the speakers (and even the noble Earl admitted it) there will be occasions—they may be very rare; the noble Earl called it "a blue moon", and some doubt was cast on the difficulty of ascertaining the frequency of blue moons by my noble friend, who is a scientist—on which an otter is caught and killed because there will be nothing under the noble Earls Amendment to stop the hounds from surprising an otter when it is asleep in a hole or under cover on the bank of a river.
Lord DENHAM: Can the noble Earl explain how his Amendment has that effect?
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Amendment has that effect because it would oblige the hunt to call off the hounds if an otter was known to be not merely on the move but a certain distance in front of the hounds, whether on the move or in hiding.
Lord DENHAM: But it would not be known.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: It has to be known. I agree that it is a serious difficulty. May I use this Amendment to illustrate a more general point? I am glad to see that the noble Earl drew attention to the recently published report of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation on otters. This was published since the noble Earl introduced his Bill. We are glad that the noble Earl

1193
thought this was a good report. He was in favour of it and wanted, so far as possible, to keep his Bill in line with it. He will have noted that the report expressed great concern—and I quote:
"about the status of the otter in England and Wales".
And recommended an immediate—and I quote again:
"legislative measure for the protection of the otter".
The legislative measure recommended in the report was not a measure such as that of the noble Earl for the regulation or control of otter hunting. The legislative measure recommended by the report was either an Otter Bill like the Badgers Bill (which is now of course an Act of Parliament) or an amendment of the 1975 Act for the protection of wild creatures and wild fauna, which was originally a Private Member's Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones.
Not only was it not recommending a Bill for the control of otter hunting or the regulation of otter hunting, but it said that it would prefer a voluntary ban on otter hunting pending effective protective legislation. I hope that the noble Earl will consider that recommendation carefully. This Amendment illustrates the fact that the noble Earl's Bill goes a very short way to carry out the object which he has in mind, the protection of the otter. I have noted carefully the opinions expressed on my Amendment and I counted three voices against, one voice in favour and one neutral voice. In view of the fact that the majority are against my Amendment, I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.33 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert—
("(e) conditions as to the minimum size of stream on which otter hunting may take place.")
The noble Earl said: The Masters of Otter Hounds Association have already laid down a rule for their members saying that they should not hunt or draw in small waters, tributaries and the head of main rivers. But since that is the place in which bitch otters usually have their
1194
pups, it would be better not to leave it to the deposited rules but to make it a statutory condition. This is just a small matter of opinion. We can either leave it for this to be put in the rules or make it a statutory condition. I would sooner make it a statutory condition. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I was going to try and persuade the noble Earl to withdraw the Amendment. We are back again to something which is mandatory. Somebody has to consider width, size, length and whether it is a brook, river or stream. As I understand the situation, the provision is to safeguard and protect pregnant bitches. If I am right about that, would it not be possible to do it by saying that there should be a closed season? I do not know enough about this subject, but it may well be that it is possible to define "a close season". I wonder whether the suggestion appeals to the noble Earl and, if so, whether he would explore that possibility, either on his own or with myself and my advisers, to see whether something more suitable and tangible might come out. That is my only reason for suggesting that he might like to withdraw this Amendment.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: My instinct, I must say, is to try to leave as much as I can to the otter committee, which I know is what the noble Lord would wish. I think it would be perfectly reasonable to leave it to them and, if the noble Lord thinks that is the best way, I will now beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert—
("(f) a condition that, when dogs are following the scent of an otter, all reasonable steps are taken to ascertain whether or not an otter is on the move in front of the dogs at such a distance as would, in the opinion of the otter committee, terrify the otter if dogs continued to follow its scent.")
The noble Earl said: I think we have virtually dealt with this Amendment in dealing with Amendment No. 2. I described how one can take all reasonable and possible steps by having somebody ahead to make quite certain that the otter is protected from the hounds. I do not think I need amplify that any further. I beg to move this Amendment.
[Amendment No. 6, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 5, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 3, at end insert ("and the deposited rules shall be amended accordingly.")
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
3.38 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Extended application of conditions for otter hunting.
.Unless the Secretary of State on the advice of the otter committee shall otherwise determine, the conditions under which otter hunting may take place shall apply to following the scent left by an otter which is not known to be on the move in front of the dogs at such a distance as would, in the opinion of the otter committee, terrify the otter if dogs continued to follow its scent.
The noble Earl said: I have already explained how, because the otter is a nocturnal animal, the only traces of it which can be found by dogs during the daytime is the scent left by an otter as he went through the night before. I think I explained on Second Reading how watching the hounds follow that scent is one the major pleasures of watching hounds following the drag of an otter.
Now that we have just passed Amendment No. 2, in fact that will be the only pleasure left to otter hunters. Otter hunting, as we know it—that is to say, pursuing otters with hounds—will be dead. It will be an offence against the Act, once the Bill is enacted. The only thing left will be to follow a drag in the absence of the otter which left it. I think that while that is going on it would be just as well if the conditions we have decided should govern tracing an otter should also govern following the scent left by an otter in its absence. It may well be that the otter committee may not think it is necessary, and I have left it open for them to say so. The decision is left in their hands. I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 9, as an Amendment to Amendment No. 8, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
3.40 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Prevention of damage by otters
Where the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is satisfied that such damage is being done by otters to a fishery or other form of property as to make it necessary to drive the otters away from the area where the damage is being done, he may grant a licence to any person authorising that person, subject to compliance with the conditions mentioned in section 1(2)(a) to (c) above, to encourage dogs actively to pursue by sight or by scent an otter found within five miles of the site where the damage was being done.
The noble Earl said: Your Lordships will appreciate that the original Bill made quite elaborate provision for an otter doing damage to be pursued by hounds, at the request of the authorised person on whose land the damage was being done, and that exonerated the huntsman of the otter hounds from any penalty. The noble Lord, Lord Craigton, pointed out that if an otter was chivvied up and down the river for some time, he tended to leave that part of the river for up to four months. The alternative is to kill it. It seems to me that, where the Ministry of Agriculture was satisfied that damage was being done, it would be less cruel and less serious, from the conservation point of view, if it could authorise a pack of hounds to chivvy an otter to such an extent that he would leave the area where he was doing damage; and the process could be repeated if he came back again.
I do not think that this will happen very often. I have been making such inquiries as I could about otters doing damage. I have seen places where they go into the fixed stake nets along the coast where salmon are caught; I have discussed the matter with people who set night nets, and I have also discussed it with fishermen. I have written to the National Farmers' Union and obtained their opinion on the effects of otters on fish farms, and it is very seldom that one can say that an otter does any damage; although when it does damage it can be serious. One has either to try to kill the otter or do what I suggest in this Amendment, and I think that this is probably the better solution. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I feel that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I am certain all of your Lordships present

1197
here today, would say without a moment's hesitation that there is no point in putting something into a Bill unless it will serve a useful purpose. I know that the noble Earl has had discussions not only with the Home Office, on whose behalf I am speaking today, but also with the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. This Amendment gives the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food power to licence otter hunting for the purpose of driving away otters which damage fisheries or other forms of property. The noble Earl knows that there is no evidence that otters are causing significant damage either to fisheries or to farm produce, and, as I am sure the noble Earl knows, the fish farming section of the National Farmers' Union sees little or no reason for any specific proposals to be made to control otters.
If I am right about this—and I feel sure that I am, and that the noble Earl will not disagree with me—there is no point in putting this into the Bill; and I suggest, with the greatest respect, that it is not necessary. Do not let us clutter up the Bill with something which will not serve any useful purpose. In these circumstances, I beg the noble Earl to withdraw the Amendment.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that he has not answered my question. There are occasions when otters do damage, as we all know, but they are rare. Does he think it is better that the otter should be snared, which is probably the only way of catching one which may live five miles away and come only at intervals, or that it should be driven away by this method?
That is the point at issue, not whether it is vitally important to have some method of getting rid of an otter which is doing damage. An owner can get rid of an otter lawfully. The question is whether it is better that he should snare it or that the otter should be chivvied and frightened away. On balance, I believe that less cruelty is inflicted if the otter is chivvied and frightened away. What do the Government believe?
3.46 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Government can respond and behave only in the light of the expert information which has been given to them, of which the noble
1198
Earl is aware, and I have already said that the fish farming section of the National Farmers' Union see little or no reason for this Amendment. If I may say so with the greatest possible respect, it is not the slightest use for the Government to obtain advice from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of the Environment and then to disregard it. My feeling is that the noble Earl does not really believe that this Amendment is necessary. He is saying that damage happens occasionally. But it happens so rarely that, in the circumstances, the Government do not feel that there is any real need for this new clause to be included in the Bill. One could argue that the new clause will not do any harm. However, over a period of years we have suffered from including in a good many Bills far too much which ultimately has been found to be quite pointless and useless.
Lord CRAIGTON: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the Minister. Killing and taking an otter is not illegal. Many fishermen consider that otters are vermin. I should prefer them to be chased away rather than trapped or killed. For that reason I support my noble friend.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I am impressed by what the Minister has said regarding the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl. If we put into the Bill a clause such as that which the noble Earl proposes, it seems to me that damage done by otters will be regarded as a common cause of fish depredation. The noble Earl knows perfectly well that people often make remarks about otters, seals and other animals. If this clause is included, people will say: "Yes, we know perfectly well that otters eat up all the fish, otherwise it would not have been put into an Act of Parliament". It is very dangerous to put a clause of this kind into the Bill. It is inviting any person who believes that the fish in his river have fallen in numbers to turn to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and say, "Please give me permission to exterminate the otters in my river". I ask the noble Earl seriously to consider not his own intention but what will happen if this clause becomes part of the Bill. I feel sure that it would have a harmful effect, not the good effect which the noble Earl is suggesting.
Lord FORBES: Otters do damage. I know of a case where otters killed a number of pinion duck. Surely it is better to be able to chase them away if they are known to be doing damage?
Lord WYNNE-JONES: That is exactly what I was saying.
Lord DENHAM: The noble Lord opposite says that this Amendment will give people the impression that otters do damage. Everybody has that impression already.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: By implication.
Lord DENHAM: I do not believe this to be so. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, that some form of words is necessary to allow otters to be killed when this is needed. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, says that otters never need to be killed. However, he must consider the point that in a large number of cases people may believe that otters should be killed. If they do not have the means of killing otters as suggested by my noble friend, they will use snares, the spade or something else, which is a very much less satisfactory and a very much more cruel way of killing an otter. Personally, I prefer the method that is included in the second half of Clause 3 and in Clause 4 of the original Bill, which my noble friend will seek to delete at a future stage. I see the difficulties about this Amendment as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, but I think perhaps it may be better if my noble friend withdraws this Amendment and also withdraws Amendment No. 14, and his Amendment proposing to leave out Clause 4.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: A case has been made out for this Amendment being unnecessary, but whether or not that case is valid I hope the Committee may think that this Amendment is undesirable, for this reason. I think your Lordships would agree that the main cause of the decline of the otter has been disturbance: disturbance of many different kinds, but one of the causes, of course, is otter hunting. This Amendment proposes that if someone finds that damage has been done to his stock of fish he may ask for a licence to allow hounds to pursue by sight or by scent an otter found within five miles of the site where the damage has been done. That means a radius of
1200
five miles from the fish farm or the hatchery or wherever it is the damage has been done by the otter. That is an enormous area and it may impinge on the territories of other otters besides the "criminal"; it may mean that other otters are chased away in an area where otters are already scarce.
I do not know whether there is a choice, because I am not at all certain if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, with the advantage of the expert advice he has received, may not be right. But whether or not he is right, I should prefer some other method, such as trapping or shooting which at any rate would pin down the culprit, rather than a method which would threaten other otters over a large area of river banks. I hope your Lordships will feel that this Amendment is undesirable whether it is necessary or not.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I must confess that I am more encouraged by the support that I have had than frustrated by the opposition, which seems to me to be not very convincing. I am glad that the ci-devant Minister of Agriculture has left the House. For the moment I was frightened that he might be going to voice the opinion of his late Department: "For Heaven's sake don't give us anything more to do !" I hoped the noble Lord would accept this Amendment. It would be very seldom used and I think it is a more humane method. However, I am not prepared to press the matter to a Division and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 11:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Grant of licence by Nature Conservancy Council
A licence may be granted to any person by the Nature Conservancy Council authorising that person for scientific or educational purposes or for the better conservation of otters and subject to compliance with any special conditions to contravene any of the approved conditions as defined by section 2 of this Act.
The noble Earl said: I regret to have to say that there is a convention that we finish at half-past four. I had intended to use this new clause as a medium for saying exactly what I thought of the Nature Conservancy Council for having gone directly against the advice of its scientific advisers, but I would not wish to

1201
waste your Lordships' time in enjoying myself perhaps at the expense of other people.
This is common form. In almost every conservation Act it is customary to give the Nature Conservancy Council the power to authorise people to go against it. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We think this is a good Amendment. I am grateful to the noble Earl for saying that he would not start an acrimonious discussion, which I do not think would have helped the situation at all.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: If I may briefly reply to the noble Lord, he and I have had many acrimonious discussions in the past: they were great fun and I bitterly regret that we cannot have another today.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.57 p.m.
Lord CRAIGTON Lord CRAIGTON moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause:
Power of Secretary of State to ban otter hunting
The Committee constituted under Schedule 1 shall, after consultation with the Secretary of State, have power to ban otter hunting for any period in any area where they consider that the continued activities of the hunt may affect the continued existence of otters in that area.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really crucial to the whole Bill and to its ultimate success if it becomes law. I ask my noble friend and the Committee to accept it. If my noble friend will accept that he will have the wholehearted support of all the conservation interests in this country. I do not say the drafting is right. It may be that the Nature Conservancy Council, of whom he is so fond, should be in place of the Secretary of State, but that could come at a later stage.
The air is full of conflicting opinions about otters. If my noble friend is right in his view then this new clause would never be used, but the most excellent report says, in paragraph 12(2):
"It is open to argument whether it is practicable to hunt without killing otters and in any event any reduction in disturbance from hunting can only be of benefit to the otter".
So if my noble friend is wrong and the report proves correct, who will be more
1202
pleased than my noble friend that he has in this Bill a way of putting matters right? And in putting matters right whose opinion will be better than the statutory otter committee who are dealing so closely with the whole subject? I believe they are in the best position to decide if, when and where, otter hunting should be stopped. I beg to move.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: As drafted, this is a thoroughly bad Amendment. It is putting a conservation clause into a Bill which is primarily an animal welfare Bill. The otter committee was devised as a committee which would see that—in those days it was otter hunting, which is now dead—that otter hunting was conducted in such a way that it was not cruel to the otter. It is entirely an ethical committee. It has no means of collecting information about the status and distribution or anything else about the otter, other than through the hunts. It would have to consult with the hunts on this, and I am bound to say that, although I have been opposed to otter hunting for as long as I can remember, we should all be prepared to pay great tribute to the efforts that the hunts have made for the conservation of the otter.
I have here the circular issued following the first Otter Report of 1969, in which it is laid down that, voluntarily, in certain areas otter hunting should cease altogether because the otter was in a bad state there, that in other areas, where the otter was falling away but not seriously, otter hunting should be reduced, that certain rivers in various parts of England were not to be hunted at all. There is a river in my county which the Association said should not be hunted which has not been hunted for the seven years which have elapsed since then, although I have credible information that there was certainly one litter seen in one tributary last year and another in another tributary this year. The hunts have taken an infinity of pains to see that, where the otter is in any danger, they cut down on its disturbance; I think we should all be ready to pay tribute to them.
I am quite convinced that the otter committee would be able to agree with them on places where that kind of thing should be done. It is not the job for the otter committee; we really must get this tidied up on Report. According to this

1203
Bill, the committee merely advises the Minister what to do. If the noble Lord worded his clause so that the otter committee were to advise the Minister, it would be better than it is now, but the people who ought to be advised are the Nature Conservancy Council. I hope that perhaps at the next stage the noble Lord will move another Amendment making it the responsibility of the otter committee, if they find anything like that is necessary, to advise the Nature Conservancy Council to take the necessary action. At the moment I do not want to divide against this clause. But it is important that we get the Bill properly drafted and it must be tidied up.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I wonder if noble Lords would allow me to intervene. I hesitate to suggest that the House should divide: if fewer than 30 noble Lords vote in a Division the proceedings finish for the day. I think that within the next quarter of an hour we can complete this Committee stage entirely.
The suggestion I have to make is this. I do not know whether it will commend itself to the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. We have some reservations. I wonder whether the noble Lord would feel disposed to withdraw his Amendment today and be prepared to see us—myself and my advisers at the Home Office—and discuss this. He is not bound by anything that is said; he can put this Amendment down again at Report stage, if he wishes. Some useful purpose may be served by our meeting and discussing this matter. It would allow the business to continue and the Committee stage to be completed today. His rights are preserved in the sense that, if he is not satisfied with the outcome of the discussion, he can put down precisely the same Amendment, or one like it, at Report.
Lord CRAIGTON: I am most anxious to take advice. It would be very much understood by the conservation interests which are watching so closely the progress of this Bill. If I undertook to put down an Amendment which had been agreed with the Department to amend what I have put down in the Amendment today, could this Amendment not stay in the Bill now and be taken out at the next stage? I should prefer to do it in that way.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: There is some difficulty about Amendments that have been agreed in the Committee being deleted at the later stage. I know that the later stage in this case would be Report stage, but I think that it is regarded as being undesirable, when the House has decided something, that at the next stage it should seek to remove it. I think there are certain difficulties. Perhaps I am exaggerating the difficulties; I am not sure.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, that, if lie does as suggested, I will try and arrange with the Whips that we have another stage, if only to deal with his Amendment and put it in a more tidy form.
Lord CRAIGTON: We should be most unhappy to let this Bill go through. I divided the Committee because I thought that we were perpetuating in law an additional disturbance to the otter. So I objected completely to the Bill. I shall be happy only if I have an Amendment of this nature in it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Craigton. I would support him in his Amendment but I think it would be wise to put it in the right form. With the assurance that that could be done, I would entirely agree with what he now proposes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Unlawful hunting]:
4.6 p.m.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("than") to ("he") in line 15 and insert ("may be permitted under the Act,").
The noble Earl said: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOKhad given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, leave out lines 19 to 23.
The noble Earl said: As a result of the withdrawal of Amendment No. 10, I do not wish to move this Amendment.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 15 not moved.]
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, leave out lines 36 to 40.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, line 37, leave out from ("otter") to end of line 40.
The noble Earl said: There are better definitions under Amendments Nos 2, 5 and 8. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: This Amendment is consequential.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of CRANBROOK The Earl of CRANBROOK moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 2, line 41, leave out from ("dogs") to end of line 43 and insert ("and pursuing an—otter so found by sight or by scent.")
The noble Earl said: This is a better definition, and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.