Lords Sitting of 21 June 1977

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

CONSUMERS AND THE NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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 it is their intention to make a considered Statement on the recommendations contained in the report of the National Consumer Council entitled Consumers and the Nationalised Industries before the House rises for the Summer Recess; and if so, when this Statement may be expected.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Government will publish a White Paper later this year announcing their conclusions on the recommendations in the National Consumer Council's report and on those in the report of the National Economic Development Office on the nationalised industries; this is unlikely, however, to be before the Summer Recess.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, apart from the inevitable delay in making a general Statement on the whole report, which I understand, am I correct in assuming that the Government would be prepared to act on individual recommendations if such a course seemed practical or desirable?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, it may prove possible to deal with certain individual recommendations independently of the main body of the report. I know that my noble friend has particularly in mind the air transport industry, and if anything should prove possible in respect of that, the Government would consider what
532
action to take. But I should emphasise that no decisions have yet been taken on any of the report's recommendations, and I am not in a position to comment on specific recommendations.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, if I might seize on the first part of that reply, which is more satisfactory than the latter part, may I ask the Minister whether he feels that the main recommendation in the report on the air transport side—namely, that the Airline Users' Committee should be independent of the Civil Aviation Authority—might be a candidate for early consideration?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I know my noble friend's strong views about the need for the independence of consumer committees, including this one. Certainly that recommendation, among others, is being closely considered; but I do not think I can go further than what I said in my first supplementary answer.

TEACHERS: REGISTERED UNEMPLOYED
2.38 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the number of student teachers successfully completing training in each year and remaining unemployed after qualification are incorporated in the numbers of registered unemployed teachers.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the statistics for unemployment by occupation are based on the main occupation in which unemployed registrants are seeking work. Newly-qualified teachers seeking teaching posts may register with Professional and Executive Recruitment, a specialist branch of the Employment Service Agency. Those who remain registered with Professional and Executive Recruitment as unemployed are incorporated in the total of all unemployed registrants seeking

533
teaching posts as published by the Department of Employment. This total figure is not broken down by date or year of qualification.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him how it comes about that in a Press release published by the Department of Education and Science on 12th May, the break-down of numbers of registered unemployed teachers in September last year was given as 7,187, but in the same release it is stated that of those teachers who successfully completed training last summer—a different category from those registered as unemployed, says the Department—about 10,300 were still seeking teaching jobs in October? Should those figures not be amalgamated?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the official figures available include not only newly-trained teachers who have registered for teaching posts but also trained teachers either seeking further employment or coming back into the profession. I think the difference is accounted for by a survey carried out by the University Council for the Education of Teachers on behalf of the National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education. That indicated that of the estimated 40,100 successfully completing courses of initial teacher training in England and Wales in 1976, about 10,300 were still seeking teaching posts last October. The latest figures, dated 10th March 1977, give a total—I can split it down for the noble Lord if required—of 7,447, of which 5,195 were seeking work as school teachers in England and Wales.
I would add that it is distinctly possible that, although students may successfully complete a course of teacher training, quite a number of them, probably looking to the prospects of the profession at the immediate moment, seek other employment. In fact only a fortnight ago I met such a lady who has now obtained a post with the Department of Social Services.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord for one further fragment of illumination? Am I to take it, then, that the figure of 7,187 unemployed teachers in September 1976 excluded
534
newly-qualified teachers, but the figure of 5,195 in March of this year had newly-qualified teachers added in?—because otherwise the figures would be entirely misleading.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: No, my Lords; the figure I gave of 7,447, which is the latest figure as at 10th March this year—a further figure will be available very shortly—included not only newly-qualified teachers but teachers already qualified either seeking further employment or coming back into the profession. The 5,195 related to England and Wales, as I have already said. The figure quoted by the noble Lord of 10,000-odd of course goes back to a survey carried out last October, and very shortly we should have official figures.
I would add—I will be frank about it—that this is a difficult Question to answer because it involves two Departments while I, thank heavens!am responsible for only one. But if there is any point on which clarification is needed I will certainly see that, between the two Departments, I get the answer for the noble Lord.

LITTER ACTS: PROSECUTIONS AND PENALTIES
2.42 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many people have been brought before the courts, and how many fined, for spreading and depositing litter in the countryside and cities since the passing of the Litter Acts.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, between 1958 and 1975, there were 42,075 prosecutions under the Litter Acts of 1958 and 1971. Fines were imposed in 39,224 of these cases.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask her whether she is aware that, in her honour, in my lapel I

535
am now wearing the Keep Britain Tidy badge as one of my Jubilee decorations? Further, is she aware that the mountains of scattered oddments that pollute the countryside and the cities are a testimony to the Philistine nature of the acquisitive society in which we live, which has forgotten that cleanliness is next to godliness? Finally, will she tell me what can be done to impress upon society that Britain is still one of the most beautiful countries in the world, and that we want to make it more beautiful still?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend is wearing the little gift that I gave him. In answer to the first part of his supplementary question, Yes, I am sure that he is absolutely right, and lie has expressed himself in far more elegant terms than I, or most other people could do. As regards what we are doing, an intensive effort is being made continuously by the Keep Britain Tidy group. This group has full Government support, which includes quite substantial financial support, and it campaigns continuously against litter of all kinds, at both national and local levels. One of the problems of doing very much more centrally, or even locally, is the demand that that would make upon public expenditure. But I entirely agree with my noble friend, and anything that can be done to publicise the awful effect that this has on our towns, cities and rural areas should be done. I think my noble friend will be pleased to know that there is a great educational effort going on in the schools and this, again, has been promoted by the Keep Britain Tidy group.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell us how far this campaign can be pushed forward without putting extra work on the police, who have other things to do? Is this something in which local authorities can take the lead?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, some local authorities are already making their statements on this question, although, again, because of expenditure problems, it has been impossible to implement that provision in the Control of Pollution Act; for instance, Northumberland is very far ahead. There is a great deal being done on the media. Both inde-
536
pendent television and BBC television, as well as radio, give a lot of free time while the newspapers and a great many industrial firms are also contributing very much, both in kind and in donations, to this campaign.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, can the noble Baroness please stress the danger to animals caused by leaving litter of all kinds, especially plastic? I am thinking of farm animals.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords. This is being stressed; and one of the objects of part of the Keep Britain Tidy campaign, which is known as Project Spiky—it is a hedgehog—is to stress the damage that can be caused in the rural areas, both to agriculture and to animals.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, where local councils have placed litter bins, which they have done in large quantities in my area, would it be possible for the noble Baroness to encourage them to clear those litter bins rather quicker than they are doing at the moment? The public are using them in increasing numbers, and the amount of litter which lies around them needs to be cleared much quicker than is the case at the moment.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this, again, is very often a problem of manpower, and it also involves the question of public expenditure. What is much more effective is if people, locally, press their local authorities on the question of collection and all try to do what they can in this campaign. But the more publicity this has the better.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that one of the reasons why litter baskets are not emptied more frequently is, of course, cost? Also, has she any evidence about the schemes for taking litter home? These are quite often introduced in National Parks, where one is provided with a bag on entering the Park. What has been the result of those schemes?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, my main experience is in the Royal Parks. Hyde Park and St. James's Park often have problems, but certainly in Regent's Park and in the other parks people respect and use the litter baskets. But we know that

537
where places are kept tidy, whether it is parks, restaurants or cities, people are much less likely to throw things away. However, one of the problems is that of all the packaging that exists in our society, a matter which was referred to by my noble friend.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that a lecture ought to be given to some of the Lords in this place, because they just leave the litter arising from their correspondence lying about for somebody else to pick up and put in the wastepaper baskets?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I did not know that such awful things went on. But my noble friend has obviously delivered the lecture for me.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, since, while prosecutions may be necessary, the only real solution is the education of public opinion. Is the noble Baroness aware that general satisfaction will be felt that the Government are continuing to give support and encouragement to the Keep Britain Tidy campaign?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much.

DANISH BACON IMPORTS
2.49 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 the payments of monetary compensatory amounts (MCAs) on imports into the United Kingdom of Danish bacon have had the effect of protecting British housewives from higher prices which would otherwise have resulted from the falling value of the pound sterling.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the price of bacon is determined by a number of factors, including the level of the monetary compensatory amounts paid on imports. The Government have said that these payments are calculated on the wrong
538
basis, are consequently too high, and should be reduced in order to put United Kingdom bacon curers and pig producers on a fair competitive footing within the EEC. A reduction of these monetary compensatory amounts could be expected to lead to some increase in prices, but is needed to allow our industry to develop in conditions of fair trading.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that within this country there is an anti-EEC campaign to blame upon the EEC publicly almost anything that appears to go wrong while ignoring the benefits? Will the Government speak out and make it plain that it was largely their influence which originally led to a situation where British consumers have been paying bacon prices as low as anywhere in the world? Will the Government also make it clear that it is thoroughly misleading to place upon the EEC the odium for the related difficulties of our producers, the British pig industry?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, our complaint about the MCAs is that they are too high because the sums are done on the wrong basis. Proposals which are now before the Council of Ministers—which, as your Lordships know, is meeting at present in Luxembourg—would, if adopted, allow for a reduction of the pig meat MCAs, in line with our objectives.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that the MCAs are too high because the sums are done on the wrong basis. Would not the noble Lord agree that one of the reasons why the MCAs are so high is because the Government have refused to devalue the green pound in an attempt to hold steady the cost of living? Would not the noble Lord further agree that, by refusing to devalue the green pound, this has enabled imports to come in at an artificially competitive rate which will affect the pig industry in the future, since there will be no pig meat, to speak of, forthcoming?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, one of the difficulties of devaluing the green pound is that it would affect feedstuffs. It would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, will the Government now give a

539
little more attention to the position of British producers as well as British consumers?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; we always put British producers first. As I said, this is one of the matters which my right honourable friend is discussing at present in Luxembourg. Since October we have achieved a reduction of the MCA. We have also achieved the abolition of the ACA, which would have been phased out by the end of the year but which has now been abolished as from 15th June. We are taking our case to the European court for a continuation of the subsidy, which has injected £17 million into the industry since the beginning of this year.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, would my noble friend note that those of us on this side of the House who support wholeheartedly our membership of the EEC also support wholeheartedly the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the fight—a very successful fight—he is putting up in Brussels on behalf of the British farmer, which is quite contrary to what the noble Lord opposite is suggesting?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I agree absolutely with my noble friend, who puts the matter into perspective.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, would not he agree that the pig industry is in a very disastrous state—as, I think, is recognised by all people? Does he not further agree that to have the green pound about 30 per cent. out of value will affect very substantially the interests of the pig producers and that this will mean—as is happening—that pigs will be slaughtered and that pig meat will not be forthcoming in the future?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we think that it is better to approach this problem through a reduction of the MCAs. My right honourable friend stated the other day that what we have achieved already we admit will not be enough to put our pig meat industry on a fully competitive footing within the Community. It is our intention to establish fair conditions of trade. A revised
540
method of calculating the monetary compensatory amounts for our pig imports is needed and we shall continue to press for this in the Community.

REDUNDANCY REBATES BILL
2.55 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: 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.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to vary rebates]:
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved the following Amendment:
Page 2, line 12, at end insert—
("( ) No order shall be made under subsection 1 above unless the Secretary of State thinks it expedient to do so with a view to adjusting the level at which the Redundancy Fund stands for the time being and having regard to the sums which may be expected to be paid from that Fund in any future period.")
The noble Baroness said: I shall not waste the time of your Lordships by going into all the arguments that we discussed in relation to this Bill during the Second Reading. However, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that those who spoke supported the intent of the Amendment which I am putting forward for the consideration of your Lordships—barring, naturally, the reply of the Minister concerned. I hope, however, that he will listen with a certain degree of generosity and kindliness to this Amendment.
During the Second Reading of the Bill I indicated our legitimate concern regarding its purpose—the reasons for variation and the manner in which variation could be introduced into the percentage of the rebate payable to employers. As at present drafted, no criteria are laid down in the Bill to guide the Secretary of State when considering the introduction of a variation. No obligation is placed upon

541
him to take account of any particular circumstances, whether as to the size of the Fund at any given time or as to any other factor such as a large number of redundancies which might be expected for a certain reason in any particular area. As the Bill stands, therefore, there is no safeguard to prevent the Government from varying the Fund rebate to suit their own ends—in effect, to use payments made by all employers to assist specific employers to deal with redundancy problems and meet redundancy payments for which they are statutorily obligated, and to use this Fund for purposes other than those for which it is intended by Statute under the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and the later Redundancy Rebates Act 1969.
The proposed Amendment would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State, before making an Affirmative Order, to take into account both the size of the Fund and any expected number of redundancies which may have a considerable effect on the size of the Fund, either putting it into deficit or affecting its balance. Since the Fund has steadily increased since December last year to over £12 million in credit—that is the latest figure at 10th June which I have, and perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to confirm it—there should be no necessity, according to the evidence before us, for a variation in the near future. In fact, if the Government choose to ignore the figures showing the way the Fund has steadily risen over recent months, they will confirm, regrettably, our suspicions that they will be using the Redundancy Fund in a way which was not intended and which would be totally unjust to those who are paying into the Fund.
As the noble Lord will be aware, under Section 122(4) of the Social Security Act 1975, the Secretary of State already has power to make an order to vary secondary Class 1 national insurance contributions. Under Section 86(5) of the Employment Protection Act, the Secretary of State may also vary the limit of the amount of pay on which redundancy payments are to be made. I believe that the figure at present is £80 a week. In both of these cases statutorily the Secretary of State has to take into account certain factors: for instance, in the case of the Employment Protection Act such matters as the general level of earnings, the national economic situation, and so on.
The wording of the proposed Amendment follows very closely that which is used in the first example I gave—Section 122(4) to which I referred just now. The Minister will therefore appreciate that this Amendment does not in any way prevent the Secretary of State from making an order to vary the percentage of rebate payable, but nevertheless it imposes certain obligations on the Secretary of State to be guided by certain criteria before making that order. Of course the wording of the Amendment might need some adjustment in order to fulfil certain legal or drafting obligations, but I think the purpose of the Amendment is clear. From what I have said I very much hope that the Minister will consider whether he will be able to accept this particular Amendment, because if he is not able to accept it I shall have to ask my noble friends to follow me into a Division. I beg to move.
Lord ROCHESTER: I should like briefly to support this Amendment. At the Second Reading of the Bill I endeavoured to stress the point that, when the Redundancy Payments Acts of 1965 were introduced, it was made plain that the Redundancy Fund should not be used for any purpose other than the making of redundancy payments. Yet a month ago the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, frankly told us that, although the Fund was then in surplus to the tune of about £13 million and he did not deny that the surplus was growing, it was the Government's intention to make this further impost on employers by reducing the amount of rebate from 50 per cent. to 41 per cent., thus reducing also the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement and enabling the Government to use the money they have saved for other purposes. It seems to me this is not a proper use for the Fund and therefore I must subscribe to the underlying purpose of this Amendment as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, has described it to us; that is, that if the Secretary of State wishes to vary the amount of rebate he should be required to justify his action by reference not to the general financial position in which the Government may find themselves at the time but rather to the extent to which the Fund is then in surplus or is likely, on the basis, for example, of future employment projections, to be in surplus at a later date.

543
It seems to me that this is an eminently reasonable principle on which to base legislation, and indeed as the noble Baroness has reminded us it is already incorporated in legislation of this Government in the Social Security Act 1975. The amounts involved here are not great particularly when compared with the 2 per cent. increase in employers' National Insurance contributions which was imposed last autumn. Therefore, as did the noble Baroness, I very much hope that when the noble Lord replies he will find it possible to accept this Amendment.
3.3 p.m.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: I was holding back because I hoped that we might hear from the Minister before, maybe needlessly, we let the debate run on. I should like to have known his intention. The three of us who graced the House during the Second Reading will know that I took the view very strongly then that the Bill is totally misconceived; that in fact, far from having any enabling Bill for the purpose of reducing the rebates on redundancy payments to the employers, any sensible economic plan at the moment would require exactly the opposite—a Bill which would help and encourage employers to be more willing to declare redundancies, in order that we might assist the general purpose of getting people to move from jobs which are no longer required into new jobs which are required, and to get them to accept new training and even greater mobility. My view was that the Bill was doing exactly the wrong thing in relation to the requirements of the economic position of the nation.
The Minister's answer to that seemed to be that the IMF exercise and the undertakings we have given about reducing the borrowing requirement, required some part of that reduction to be found from this particular Fund, even if it made an economic nonsense. That is a jolly bad reason, and if the IMF in fact required us to make an economic nonsense in order to find an additional sum of £11 million to take off the borrowing requirement, we might perhaps explain the situation in a little more detail to them.
The Minister admitted that the Fund was currently in surplus. I might remind the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, that at
544
first the Minister referred to £13 million and then, in the course of a few minutes, he reduced it to £11 million, which of course is about in keeping with the accuracy of general Treasury statistics. That £2 million was lost during the time it takes for a message to be passed from the non-existent box of officials at the back via a suitable messenger to the Minister down here, and if we lose £2 million at that sort of rate then the economic nonsense is even greater than I suspected at the beginning; but it is in keeping with the general figures that the Treasury has been producing in recent times. However, in the end the Minister settled for £11 million; I only trust that no more millions have been lost in the few weeks that have elapsed since then and that it still stands at £11 million.
In that situation we ought to be considering firmly whether or not at this stage we should be encouraging, even more than we are doing with the Fund in that condition, a much more active look at how we get people into new jobs. But certainly with £11 million in the Fund it seems to me there is no case for what is proposed by the Minister—and indeed, to do him justice he did not make the point that it was in any way justified by the considerations to which the redundancy payments legislation is addressed.
As to the Amendment, I personally am very surprised that anybody should think that the Amendment goes sufficiently far or ties the Minister down sufficiently firmly. I should have preferred some much stronger form of Amendment, one which actually stated a figure above which the Fund should not move, rather than these somewhat vague words which merely require him in an undefined way to take it into account. I have had talks with people and I am assured that the advantages of the present wording are, first, that it already exists in other legislation, and in other legislation of this Government, as the noble Baroness has said; and, secondly, that it would give the other place the opportunity of calling the Minister to account if he made a reduction at a time when any sensible examination of the Fund would clearly make that reduction unnecessary or unsatisfactory, or indeed wrong. So that it does enable us to call him to boot if he acts in an arbitrary fashion.

545
If that is correct advice, then I will certainly accept the Amendment; but in view of the words used by the Minister on Second Reading, I think it would be wrong to let the Bill proceed without some Amendment. In his habitual fashion of total candour he told us he did not want us to be in any doubt; the whole purpose of the enabling Bill was not to enable in the general sense, but was to set the scene for the order which he said will be introduced, cutting the rebate from 50 per cent. to 41 per cent. He made it quite clear that, far from just being a vague enabling situation (they could have the freedom, should they need it) it was a preparatory Bill so that they might immediately proceed to lay the order, making this, as I believe, quite wrong cut in the cash assistance made to employers who have to face the consequences of redundancy in this economic situation. I think the House in that case really would be, with respect, acting contrary to all its responsibilities, allowing the Minister to have a Bill which provided no check whatever on the action he might take under it.
In that situation, with that very candid statement made to us by the Minister, I think we are bound to lay down some guidance as to what the House expects the Minister to take into account if and when he wishes to act under the enabling powers of this Bill. It seems to me that to require him to take into account the balance in the Fund, and to require him to take into account a reasonable estimate of what calls may be made on the Fund in a future term, are the least requirements one can ask for. Ministers in the past, myself included, might well have got up and said, "But you can always trust us to act perfectly reasonably. Of course, we would not do anything so unreasonable I as not to take these things into account". I must have said that myself on a hundred occasions. But if the Minister was hoping to get away, as we used to hope to get away, with such a clearly rational and sensible remark, then, of course, he has shot the ground from under his own feet in his burst of candour by telling us in advance that he did not propose to do anything of the sort, that he proposed to act—or rather his senior colleagues will no doubt direct what he does—without taking anything into account. Once they have this Bill safely on the Statute Book they will reduce the balance in the
546
Fund by cutting the rebate whether or not the balance in the Fund justified it; whether the likely calls on the Fund in the future would justify it or would not. Having been clearly assured of the nefarious purposes which the Government unhappily have in mind, I suggest to the House that we simply would be totally lacking in responsibility if we allowed the Bill to go forward in that way.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in making it quite plain that this is not a cri de Coeur on behalf of the employers, which is what the Minister seemed to be implying to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. I said I was quite prepared to believe that it may be that normally she does act in that capacity. That is not my business. This is simply an all-Party or all-group or all-people attempt in this House to ensure, so far as we can, that the Government do not make economic asses of us all and make the economic situation of the country more of a nonsense than it already is, that they act with the economic requirements in mind rather than some general requirement, whether by the IMF or anybody else, that we have to claw a notional £11 million out of any fund that is going in order to make up a notional total reduction in the borrowing requirement of the country. Since the Chancellor, I am now told by senior Ministers, feels able to live with a Budget which has already been mulcted of £1,000 million, I reckon he could live with a reduction in the borrowing requirement which is short of £11 million.
I, therefore, hope very much, first, that the Minister will do credit to himself and his past by saying, "I have been given a nonsensical brief here, not for the first time. I do not propose to read it out; I am very impressed with the excellent economic advice I have received from the Floor of the House and I accept the Amendment". I emphasise again that the Amendment does not commit him to doing anything. It only commits him to taking into account certain factors if he does do anything. So he would not be doing any harm to anybody. He could always come along and prove that he has taken those factors into account. I hope that he will do that. I will very happily have a word with the Prime Minister to see that in the next cleaned-up version of

547
the Honours List whatever he is lacking at the moment is suitably provided for him.
If he is not able to do that, then with great seriousness I say to the Committee that we ought not to let this Bill go in its present form. We have been warned what will happen if we do let it go, knowing that that is what the Government intend to do without any justification at all. We will be the ones to blame, not them. Therefore, for our own protection, for that of our citizens, the working force and the employers, and the economy of the country, the least we can do—and I think it is very little; it is too little for me—is to insert this Amendment in the Bill, and at least require the Minister to explain to us and to the other place, if and when he moves, that he has taken these matters into account, and to show us how these matters justify him in doing what he does. I support this very tiny Amendment which I hope the House will see, with or without his acquiescence, will get on the Statute Book.
May I just remind your Lordships of what he knows and every ex-junior Minister in this House knows; that is, that sometimes it strengthens one's hand powerfully with one's senior colleagues to have been seen to say all the right things and yet despite that have to report, "Those wretched fellows in our House forced the Amendment on me". It makes life easier for him. The Chancellor can then go and tell the IMF that he did his best. Joel Barnett has got a perfect answer to everybody else in the other place. So I hope nobody will be taken in by the fact that the Minister has to read out his brief; that we all understand. We will listen with the utmost interest and sympathy, and then, I hope, proceed to pass the Amendment.
3.17 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: After that I am almost speechless. The well-known and rather attractive Irish streak in the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, certainly came out in his speech. I am not very ambitious, quite frankly. All I am worried about is whether my peas will get filled out when the sun conies along and I will he able to get on with something worth while. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, and the other noble
548
Lords and the noble Baroness who have spoken, have really anticipated things. The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has made a speech which would be admirable when the Affirmative Resolution procedure comes before the House, when the Government decide it is appropriate to introduce the order reducing the rebate to 41 per cent. At the moment, although I said they intend to do so, they can only do so—and I want to emphasise this—by the authority of Parliament, including the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, who has been such an ornament in many ways to Parliament for such a long time.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: More than an ornament on this one.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: Well, at the moment I could say other things, but I want to see him later outside. To get down to the serious business of the afternoon: first of all, in regard to the Redundancy Fund's surplus I can give the figure, not reducing it in the process; it was £12·7 million at 17th June 1977. The noble Baroness referred to previous legislation, particularly Section 122(4) of the Social Security Act, and the most interesting thing about that, as with this Bill, is that any alteration considered by the Minister is subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. Indeed, if any change is made under this enabling Bill that will be subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, and subject to challenge both by the other House and this House.
It would seem clear that the Amendment is intended to ensure that the power to vary rebates is used only as may be necessary from time to time for the management of the Redundancy Fund. Briefly, that is the purpose of the Amendment. However, whether it does so is open to question. The Amendment does not define what may justifiably be taken into account by the Secretary of State for Employment in coming to the view that it is expedient to adjust the level of the Redundancy Fund. For example, it is expedient at the present time to reduce the rate of rebate in order to reduce the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement. In coming to that conclusion account has been taken of both the state of the Fund and of foreseeable outgoings.

549
Accordingly, the conditions of the proposed Amendment would appear to be satisfied and its adoption would not prevent an order being laid in draft before both Houses of Parliament under the Affirmative Resolution procedure. In other words, the Minister could still bring forward his order. The Amendment is, therefore, of little or no practical effect and, with respect, I believe that it should be withdrawn as it does no more than acid unnecessarily to the wording of the Bill. Moreover, the social security legislation should be considered against the background of the Act as a whole, and any undertakings which are given in Parliament during the course of the consideration of the Bill.
On the other hand, the Redundancy Payments Bill stands in isolation and must be considered against the unequivocal statements which were made about using it in the first instance to reduce the rebate to 41 per cent. as part of the Chancellor's economy package of July 1976. That only repeats what I have already said in this House but, again, is subject to the challenge of both Houses under the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
I would suggest that it is neither appropriate nor necessary to write in such a condition as is involved in the Amendment to the present Bill. As has already been made clear, the Bill is an enabling instrument to permit rebate to be varied from time to time in the future. Having said that, clearly there can be no argument about the need for adequate control over the management of the Fund, and the power to vary rebate should be used only after full and careful consideration. It is considered that both conditions are adequately safeguarded by Clause 1 as it stands. The rate of rebate cannot be varied without the specific authority of both Houses of Parliament. The time made available for debate under the Affirmative Resolution procedure affords ample opportunity for the reasons underlying any change to be fully explained and for Parliament to decide whether those reasons are such as to justify a change being made.
Although at first sight it may seem appropriate to follow the precedent of the Social Security Act, it would be wrong to confuse the present Bill and the use to
550
which it will be put in the first instance with the provisions of a quite different piece of legislation related to the collection of contributions. The Redundancy Rebates Bill should be considered on its individual merits. Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have been at some pains to explain openly the reasons underlying it and the use to which it will be put. At no time does it seem likely that the enabling power will be used without due regard to the state of the Fund and foreseeable demands upon it, as the prudent administration of public money demands that a careful watch should be kept on such matters. However, utlimately the final say-so will remain firmly with Parliament under the Affirmative Resolution procedure.
A far more difficult Amendment was moved in another place, but I believe that this Amendment really does not alter the character of Clause 1. As I have said, in point of fact the Minister could still introduce his proposals under the Affirmative Resolution procedure. I suggest that the challenge will come when the order is made, if and when it is made. At present we are dealing with a purely enabling measure which would allow the Minister not only to reduce the rebate, but conceivably, with an improvement in economic conditions, to increase it.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: Pull the other one!
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, has said, "Pull the other one", but I am simply giving him a statement of fact. It is an unhappy situation that measures of this sort are necessary. However, the noble Lord has had some experience of economic problems; he knows the necessary and proper measures to take and has faced them in the past. That is what we are doing at present. Therefore, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment; or perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, will withdraw it and possibly reconsider it.
Baroness ELLES: The Minister will realise that I do not find his reply at all satisfactory. In fact, everything that he has said points to what we have already suspected, that the money in the Fund will not be used for the purpose for which it was originally intended or for which it is

551
paid. I do not think that this is the time to go into arguments about whether one should encourage redundancies. When industrial investment is so discouraging, as it is at present, I, personally, do not feel that we are in a position to encourage redundancies when there is nothing to be retrained for. However, that is a major debate which we should have another time.
I should like to express my thanks to those who have supported this Amendment. It should be said—because this point has not been raised by the Minister and this is what makes me suspicious—that when the decision was taken on 22nd July to vary the rebate, the Fund was standing at about £5 million in deficit. What has never been brought to light in this House is the fact that at the beginning of December there was a very mysterious payment of about £8 million into the Fund. I have never been a Minister so I cannot say from personal experience that I know how £8 million was suddenly found. However, to those who are knowledgeable about these matters it certainly seems that this £8 million must have been found through bad accounting by whichever Department looks after this particular Fund—presumably the Treasury—and that the decision was taken in July last year because the Fund was in deficit to £5 million. The Government have not had either the courage or the honesty to admit that, the Fund now being in credit, they have no right to take the action which they are considering.
When the Minister said that this is a purely enabling Bill, the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, quite rightly pointed out that the Minister said during the Second Reading debate:
"Accordingly, the first action to be taken under the proposed legislation will be the introduction of an order reducing rebate to 41 per cent". [Official Report, 17/5/77; col. 636.]
I know that the Minister is in full agreement, knowing perfectly well what he said. Therefore, for all those reasons, including the one to which the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, referred, we should be economic asses; and I object that because of bad financial accounting by the Government we should also be made financial asses. Regrettably, therefore, I have to ask my noble friends to go in with me to a Division to press this Amendment.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: The noble Baroness mentioned a mysterious £8 million, of which I have no knowledge. That figure certainly did not come from me. With respect, I would suggest that that is hardly a matter for your Lordships' House. I shall certainly make some inquiries. I do not think that it is a matter for your Lordships House to deal with; we shall find ourselves in severe trouble with another place if we do so.
Baroness ELLES: I certainly take the point and apologise if I have overstepped the mark. However, it is difficult when one is arguing very much a financial matter not to draw the attention of the Committee to such things. If I should not have done so, I apologise to the Minister.
3.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 114; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

de Clifford, L.

Airedale, L.

Brookeborough V.

Denham, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Byers, L.

Derwent, L.

Allerton, L.

Caccia, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Ampthill, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Eccles, V.

Avon, E.

Carrington, L.

Effingham, E.

Banks, L.

Cathcart, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Barnby, L.

Chelwood, L.

Elles, B.

Barrington, V.

Clancarty, E.

Elton, L.

Belstead, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Berkeley, B.

Clwyd, L.

Exeter, M.

Boothby, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Foot, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Craigavon, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Brentford, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gage, V.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Rochester, L.

George-Brown, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Romney, E.

Glasgow, E.

Long, V.

Sackville, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Loudoun, C.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Greenway, L.

Lovat, L.

Sandys, L.

Grey, E.

Lyell, L.

Selkirk, E.

Gridley, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sharples, B.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mancroft, L.

Spens, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Marley, L.

Stamp, L.

Halsbury, E.

Mersey, V.

Strathspey, L.

Hampton, L.

Monck, V.

Sudeley, L.

Hankey, L.

Monson, L.

Suffield, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Morris, L.

Thurso, V.

Hatherton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Trefgarne, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Vernon, L.

Henley, L.

Northchurch, B.

Vickers, B.

Hunt, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Onslow, E.

Wade, L.

Ilchester, E.

Piercy, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Inglewood, L.

Porritt, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Killearn, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Windlesham, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Reigate, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Robbins, L.

Young, B.

Kinnaird, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Arwyn, L.

Gardiner, L.

Rusholme, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bacon, B.

Hanworth, V.

Shinwell, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Sligo, M.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Snow, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Stedman, B.

Brockway, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Kirkhill, L.

Stone, L.

Burntwood, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Oram, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Pannell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Pargiter, L.

White, B.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Phillips, B.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

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

Popplewell, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Raglan, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gaitskell, B.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

DETONATORS BILL [H.L.]
3.39 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: 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.—(Viscount Brookeborough.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Marking of detonators]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: May I raise a point on Clause 1 of the Bill which perhaps ought to be the subject of an Amendment. I raise it on the Question whether the clause shall stand part because it gives me the opportunity to say a word or two on this first clause of what is an important Bill. The major point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, when he was replying for the Government on the Second Reading of this Bill was that the Bill was not really

555
necessary. Although both the Government and the Opposition, and indeed all noble Lords in all parts of the House had the same desire to ensure that detonators were controlled as strictly as possible, none the less the Government's view was that the Bill was not necessary because powers to detect the origin of detonators already existed under other legislation.
I feel that a criticism really should be made of the attitude of the Government which was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Lord Harris first of all claimed that the existing marking system had been "very helpful" in producing evidence about the source of detonators used by terrorists in Great Britain. I accept that, but, as I understand it, when a terrorist detonator is recovered at the scene of a crime the process of discovering the origin of that detonator may take months rather than weeks and presumably must be pursued by going to the various distributors who have handled the detonator concerned.
I should have thought that the provisions of Clause 1, taken with Clause 2—because the two clauses are inextricably entwined—could tighten up and speed up the process of discovering how a detonator has fallen into terrorist hands. After all, the marking provisions (that is, Clause 1) will make it clear whether a detonator has been smuggled out of Great Britain into Northern Ireland or perhaps smuggled into Northern Ireland from abroad, and we shall not be left in the dark as to whether a detonator has been smuggled or is old stock.
Secondly, I conclude from the Second Reading debate that the recording provisions of Clause 2—if I may refer to that clause before we come to it—will, and certainly should, make it possible to discover whether a detonator has been lost or stolen and so has fallen into terrorist hands. I will return to Clause 2 when we reach it, but so far as Clause 1 is concerned I confine myself to making the single point that in my view Clause 1 is valuable because it will, or should, shed further light on finding out whether detonators have been smuggled. In that context I have one question for Lord Harris: if the Bill were to pass into law, would it not be necessary to delete the word "intended" from Clause 1(1),
556
which states that manufacturers must mark detonators,
"… indicating whether the detonator is intended to be used or exported for use …

(a) in Great Britain

(b) in Northern Ireland

(c) in the Republic of Ireland

(d) elsewhere".

The noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, pointed out on Second Reading that this provision should be tightened up to ensure that the detonator so marked was actually sent to the designated area. I apologise for using this single point as an excuse for making a short speech about the merits of Clause 1, but that is no bad thing, because the Second Reading was quite a long time ago. If the Government agree that the word "intended" should be deleted, then to achieve that I should like to table an Amendment on Report.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): Attractive though it would be to repeat my Second Reading speech, I think the Committee would probably find it less so. On that occasion I explained why the Government did not consider the Bill to be necessary, although its objectives were admirable. I will gladly look into the point which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has made; he will realise that it is a drafting point which I shall have to look at, but after having done so I will write to him.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I welcome the points made by my noble friend Lord Belstead. As we are dealing with the clause stand part, I do not think it would be right to make a Third Reading speech on the subject. I appreciate what he said about the possible need for an Amendment, and I assure him that I should be delighted to consider it.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Records to be kept]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord BELSTEAD: As I have said, Clause 2 is an important part of the Bill—indeed, I take the view that it is perhaps the more important of Clauses 1 and 2—and again, with respect, I do not think the Government have entirely taken on board the nature of the problem with which Clause 2, working in tandem with Clause 1, is intended to deal.

557
I am the first to admit that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, made a convincing case when he said that existing powers cover the sale and use of explosives and detonators by authorised people. However, the problem is not the authorised person, but the unauthorised one; the problem is the terrorist. On Second Reading, my noble friend Lord Brookeborough told us how a batch of detonators had recently been discovered near his home, and, replying for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, spoke of a very large number of detonators being "around", many of them manufactured a number of years ago. That means that terrorists are making inroads into old detonators which they may have laid their hands on a number of years ago. I am not disregarding that point, but the fact of the matter is, clearly from our Second Reading debate, that detonators can be and are being obtained and that they are being obtained unlawfully. Therefore, because by no means all the detonators come from the Republic, in my view Clause 2 is necessary.
I believe the clause is necessary for two reasons. First, it is surely necessary to discover whether detonators manufactured for use in Great Britain are smuggled out for use in Northern Ireland. This may not happen very much, and Lord Harris suggested on Second Reading that the major problem was smuggling in from the Republic. Secondly, if the noble Lord was correct in saying that, then if we are to have a comprehensive records system, which is what the Bill would produce, this would be a persuasive argument for convincing the Government of the Republic—a new Government, by the way, at this moment—that their control of detonators needs to be improved because, as the Government spokesman said at the previous stage of the Bill, it is from the Republic that we believe that most of the detonators used in Northern Ireland come.
I would follow that with a question in relation to Clause 2, and it arises from a point which the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, made on Second Reading. I wonder whether a provision should be inserted in Clause 2 to ensure that the last legitimate owner of a detonator used it for a legitimate purpose? On Second Reading, I suggested that one way by
558
which a terrorist could lay his hands on a detonator was by persuading another person using explosives to pass some on while pretending that the detonator had been used. As Lord Harris said at that stage, in Northern Ireland only licensed shot-firers may use detonators, and then only under direct police supervision, and unused detonators must be destroyed on the spot with any losses reported to the police.
That is admirable, but it is not the procedure in Great Britain. I am not suggesting that it should be the procedure in Great Britain, but I am suggesting that Clause 2 might be improved by inserting a requirement that the detonator owner must show in his records that the detonator has been lawfully used. The Government may say that this is covered by the regulation-making powers of Clause 2(2), but perhaps it should he spelled out in the text of the Bill. I think that to do so would improve Clause 2 and, if the Government were to agree with me about that, I should like to table an Amendment on Report.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, does not intend to comment on this point, perhaps I may say that I find it difficult to accept the Government attitude to it, because some 600 detonators were recovered and were unmarked, detonators which had been made either for Great Britain or the rest of the world. It would have been helpful, had they been marked and accounted for, if even one of them could have been identified as coming from Great Britain. The insinuation by the Government that they are old stock is not borne out to me by those who analyse and who are directly involved.
Nor is it borne out by the facts. The first fact is that, in September 1971, when the order for marking detonators going to the Irish Republic and to Northern Ireland was made, the first detonator was recovered some four months later. If the terrorists had an ample supply of old stock, the last thing that they would do would be to use stock that was marked, and clearly marked. I have a safe detonator in my pocket and, if noble Lords like, they could see it. Your Lordships will agree that no terrorist would use a marked detonator if he could get unmarked detonators.

559
All the people I know who are directly involved in this matter are quite satisfied that a large proportion of the detonators at present used by terrorists are of modern manufacture. It merely means that we should perhaps have to go further and have additional marking in a chemical way, which is not a very difficult matter. I agree with my noble friend that this is a very modest Bill. I felt that we should keep it modest in order to try to persuade the Government to do something about a very important matter. It is the first detonator that goes off that matters to the man who is killed, not the others.
Lord BELSTEAD: I wonder whether we can perhaps persuade the Government spokesman to his feet. It would be helpful. We are in Committee and I believe that, when the Bill had its Second Reading, some of us—myself included—realised that there were difficulties about the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, made a very thorough speech pointing out the legislative provisions that exist which led him to conclude that the Bill was not necessary. I have not risen to my feet to speak on Clauses 1 and 2 for the sake of hearing my own voice and, with regard to Clause 2, I believe that there is quite a serious point which also washes over into Clause 1; that is, the question of smuggling.
When he made his speech on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made the perfectly valid point—for which we are grateful because the Government have the up-to-date information, whereas we have not—that the majority of detonators coming into Northern Ireland come from the Republic. Of course, I accept that. The point that I am trying to get across to the Government is that, although that may be true and although it is possible to see whether a detonator which has been destined by the manufacturers for Southern Ireland has come into Northern Ireland because it has a Southern Ireland mark, I can only assume that the Security Forces would also wish to know, if there appear other detonators which are unmarked, how they have entered Northern Ireland. Have they been smuggled out of Great Britain? If so, have they been smuggled directly to Northern Ireland or have they been smuggled out of Great Britain and on to the Continent, and then have they come back? If that is the case,
560
have they come back from the Continent through Southern Ireland or have they come back directly?
I am raising this matter on the Question, That the Clause stand part and I made a particular point. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not feel that he wants to reply to the particular point which I made and which I said could lead to an Amendment, I believe that it would be helpful if he would take our discussions a stage further and if he would respond to the points which I have now made for the second time about the question of smuggling. I believe that it is germane to the merits not of this Bill only but of existing legislation.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord raised a particular question relating to the contents of Clause 2. I gave the Promoter of the Bill, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, the opportunity to reply, which seemed to be reasonable, for it is of course the noble Viscount's Bill, not a Government Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is asking me to consider this particular point, I shall of course gladly do so and shall write to him. However, as he will realise, it is very difficult to deal with particular points of this sort without notice upon a measure which I must repeat is not a Government Bill.
Of course, there is a real problem here. There is no doubt that there is real difficulty as far as the control of detonators is concerned. There is no argument about that. The question is whether it is sensible to proceed by way of this Bill. I explained to the House on Second Reading why we did not think that it was and why we took the view, having received the advice of all our advisers, that it was not appropriate to proceed in this particular manner. I also explained that, if we wished to arm ourselves with further powers, other pieces of legislation could be used. That remains our position. However, the noble Lord has asked me to look into this particular point and I shall gladly do so at the same time as I deal with the other point.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Do I understand that the noble Lord is saying that he will arrive by other means at the same destination as my noble friend is

561
suggesting? Is he suggesting that the particular terms of the Bill are not acceptable but that the general idea is acceptable and that he has it in mind speedily to produce a Bill that can meet the technical points? Is he saying that? I was interested in the reluctance of the noble Lord to give a Government view today on the basis that he did not want to repeat his Second Reading speech of 8th February. That is very commendable and right but some weeks have passed since 8th February. Has the noble Lord not had any representations from any source since 8th February to cause him to change his mind about the desirability of this?
I ask that question because I have received such representations. Since we had the Second Reading debate—and one of the objects of a Second Reading debate is to excite interest among people who are in a position to give some guidance—I have met within the precincts of the Palace people with a great deal of experience and authority in these matters who have assured me that the aims of this Bill are desirable. They went so far as to say that they were essential, as well as rather urgent. Has that been the experience of the noble Lord or has it simply been confined to me?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: The noble Lord will not be astonished to know that that has not been my experience. I am quite sure that there are those who take the view that this Bill would be helpful. The noble Viscount who has promoted the Bill clearly takes that view and so, as I understand it, does the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. What I am saying is not that the Government are contemplating bringing in a Bill of their own but, if the noble Lord will forgive me for drawing his attention to what I said on Second Reading, that, if we wish to take further powers to deal with this problem, there are various pieces of legislation on the Statute Book under which we can act.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Inspection of records]:
3.59 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH moved Amendments Nos. 1 and 2:
562
Page 2, line 31, after ("also") insert (",subject to subsection (2A) of this section,")
Page 2, line 37, at end insert—
("(2A) Any detonator or consignment of detonators carried by sea as part of a ship's cargo shall not be liable to inspection under the provisions of this section while on board the ship or during the loading or unloading thereof.")
The noble Viscount said: In its unamended form, the Bill would have placed onerous obligations on shipowners who are already obliged to keep records to comply with the Department of Trade's requirements for the carriage of dangerous goods. These two Amendments are designed to mitigate the offence without affecting the thrust of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Certainly, we see no objection in principle to the Amendments, but they imply that detonators are open to inspection where-ever they may be. That also implies that anyone authorised to inspect detonators has a right of entry to premises, but the Bill makes no such provision. I think that I should draw that to the attention of the noble Viscount.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: I should like to proceed with the Amendments and see how they can be repaired at Report stage.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Carriage of detonators by sea
.Nothing in this Act shall apply to the carriage of detonators by sea where the port of shipment and the port of discharge are outside the United Kingdom.
The noble Viscount said: The effect of the Amendment is to ensure that the British shipowner carrying detonators from, say, Australia to Japan is not obliged to comply with the Bill. If not amended, shipowners would be placed in considerable difficulties without in any way serving the purpose of the Bill.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
4 p.m.
Lord LYELL: 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.—(Lord Lyell.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Stop Notices]:
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 18, at end insert—
("( ) Before serving a stop notice the local planning authority shall have regard to the extent to which the activity or activities to be prohibited by it appear to be offensive and to the seriousness of the consequences of the prohibition for any person upon whom it is to be served".)
The noble Lord said: I observe that the noble Baroness who will be dealing with the Bill on behalf of the Government is not yet in her place, and perhaps I could therefore take this opportunity of telling the other Members who are in the Chamber what is the purpose of the Amendment, and to explain its contents—
Lord STRABOLGI: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the Front Bench is fully manned, and we are taking note of what the noble Lord says.
Lord FOOT: I did not want to make that a point of criticism in any way, and looking at the Front Bench, I entirely agree that it is fully manned.
The Amendment was the subject on which I spoke at the Second Reading of the Bill, and perhaps I might explain its context to the Committee since it is a rather technical point. Under the town and country planning legislation up to this time the local planning authorities, when they consider that there has been a breach of planning control, have certain remedies at their disposal. Under Clause 1(2) of the Bill it is proposed to add another weapon to the armoury of weapons with which the local planning authorities are already vested. Perhaps I might explain, in as brief as possible terms, what is the
564
present state of the law. If the local planning authority considers that there has in some way been a breach of planning control, it has at its disposal first of all the remedy of issuing an enforcement notice. The authority issues a notice which requires the person who is assumed to be in breach of planning control to cease the activity, whatever it may be, within a certain period of time.
Development under our planning law falls into two categories. First, there is the type of development which involves some physical alteration of the premises or the site concerned, and, secondly, there is a quite different form of development, which is constituted when somebody decides to change the use of existing premises. Both of these activities are forms of development. With regard to the first kind of development—that is, doing something physically to alter the site or the premises—there has long been available for the local planning authority (certainly since the Act of 1971, which is the main Act) a double-barrelled gun. It can first of all issue an enforcement notice, and when that is done the individual concerned is required to cease that activity within a particular period of time specified in the notice. But the individual concerned has a right of appeal. If he appeals against the notice, the matter goes to an inquiry, and it might be quite a long time before the issue is resolved.
Meanwhile, however, if only an enforcement notice has been issued, the individual can continue with his activity until such time as his appeal is heard and decided on. That has manifest insufficiencies. If a local planning authority is confronted with an activity, with something physically being done on the site or the premises, which seems to constitute a breach of planning control, and if the authority can have resort only to the enforcement notice procedure, and the person concerned appeals, this means that the individual concerned can continue with his activity, however objectionable it may be, throughout the whole of the appeal procedures. It may well be—and no doubt it very often happens—that if, for example, one is constructing a building, then before all the procedures have been gone through the building has actually been put up; or, alternatively, the building has actually been pulled down.

565
Therefore in order to meet that obvious gap in the law, it was provided by the Act of 1971—if not before—that there should be an additional weapon. That is that if in these cases of physical development the local planning authority decided to issue an enforcement notice because it thought that there had been a breach of planning control, and then went on to think that it was a matter of urgency, it could issue additionally a stop notice, which could bring the activity to an immediate, or very nearly immediate, halt. I think that everybody is agreed that in cases of that kind that additional stop notice procedure is very valuable and important.
But the situation up to now has been that the stop notice procedure is available to local planning authorities in the event of a physical change in the premises or the site, but it is not available in the second kind of development; that is to say, where there is a change in the use of the premises. The main purpose of the Bill, which I regard in principle as wholly laudable, is to fill that gap and to make the stop notice procedure applicable in some instances to the development which is a change of use. It was in 1975 that Mr. George Dobry, who had been asked to investigate the whole of our planning procedures, issued his report in which he recommended that the stop notice procedure should be extended to the change of use development in cases where the change of use was of an offensive nature. As I understand it, the Bill is designed primarily to implement the recommendation that was contained in that report.
I have no objection—and I have never suggested this—to an extension of the law as Mr. Dobry contemplated it and recommended it. I have no objection to the extension of the stop notice procedure to development by way of change of user, if that change of user is indeed offensive. But the Bill goes a long way further than that, and in Clause 1 it provides that the stop notice procedure shall be available to local planning authorities in the case of all changes of use, however inoffensive or offensive they may happen to be. It is to that matter that the Amendment is directed.
My argument to the House on Second Reading was that, if the Bill went through
566
in its present form, allowing a local planning authority to use the stop notice procedure in any case where there had been a change of user, it could be used oppressively, and particularly oppressively against small people. From the many examples which I could have chosen to illustrate my argument, the kind of case which I chose was that of a person who is occupying a house as his residential accommodation, as his home, and who decides, for example, to start some small line of business. If when he does that he uses his own home for meeting clients, for example, or for meeting people with whom he is doing business, he may well be in breach of planning control because that may constitute a change of user. Under Clause 1 of this Bill as it is now drawn, it would be open to a local planning authority in a case of that kind, if they so wished, not only to issue an enforcement notice and allow the whole matter to go to appeal, but to issue a stop notice requiring the person to cease that activity forthwith, even though the activity was wholly intrinsic and even though the activity was one which the local community and his neighbours might welcome as providing a useful service for them.
Therefore, my argument was that it was wrong in principle to extend the power of local planning authorities to issue stop notices in all such cases because of the danger that it might be used oppressively in that way. After all, if somebody in their own home sets up a hairdressing business, for example, or something like that, and uses the front room for that purpose, it is very difficult to believe, is it not, that that is doing any harm to the people of the neighbourhood?—or at least the harm must be minimal. It is, on the other hand, providing a service which presumably is of some use to them. Surely it is oppressive that a local planning authority should have the power arbitrarily, if they wish to do so, to say to that person, "No; you must stop this activity, not only when the enforcement notice comes into effect but now." Within three days of issuing the notice they can require that the activity be brought to an end; in many cases possibly with almost disastrous results. The person concerned may have invested money; he may have entered into contracts, and the rest, in connection with this little business, and he is told, "No; you must

567
bring it to a halt forthwith". That was the matter with which I was concerned, and the whole object of my Amendment today is to seek to limit the power to issue stop notices to the cases which Mr. Dobry had in mind; that is, to the cases where a change of user constituted something offensive to the neighbourhood.
I am sorry to go on for so long, but what I shall try to do now, very briefly, is to deal with the arguments which were advanced at Second Reading in attempted rebuttal of the argument that I was putting forward. Those arguments fell into three classes. It was said, first of all, that local planning authorities are very reasonable people, and they themselves would not wish to use this stop notice power in cases where it was not appropriate and in cases where it would be oppressive. I said on the last occasion that I thought there were two answers to that argument. The first one is a general answer, that it is wrong in principle, in my submission, to give to local planning authorities, or indeed to any other authority, powers which could be used oppressively and arbitrarily if it is possible to avoid that course being taken. Local planning authorities, however well-minded they may be, if they are insufficiently informed and have not got all the facts in front of them, can almost inadvertently, as it were, issue a stop notice which is going to do great damage to an individual of which they, as a planning authority, may be almost wholly unaware. That is the first answer, as it seems to me, to the argument that they are reasonable people. Of course I agree that they are likely to be reasonable people; but that is the general answer to the question. The more particular answer is that, as I was trying to say just now, the local planning authority may not act oppressively out of malice, but they may act oppressively because they are ill-informed or insufficiently informed of the consequences of what they are proposing to do.
The second argument which was advanced against my proposal was that there is no need to worry about local planning authorities using this power wrongly, for the reason that, under the terms of the town and country planning legislation, if a person has an enforcement notice and a stop notice wrongly served upon him then, in the fullness of time, he may
568
be entitled to compensation; and the parallel argument to that was that local planning authorities will always be careful not to issue stop notices where they should not because of the risk that they, the local planning authority, may have to pay out compensation at some later date.
In my submission there are three flaws in that argument. The first of them is that, in the sort of case which I took just now to illustrate my argument—the case of somebody who sets up in business in his own home—if you impose a stop notice and, subject to legal sanctions, you say, "You shall not carry this on after tomorrow", you may be doing him a damage for which he can never be adequately compensated, because you may have smashed his business, into which he has made some investment of capital, time and money.
The second argument against this contention, in my submission, is that there is one instance—and it is a very important one—in which no compensation is payable at all, and that is the case where an enforcement notice and a stop notice are issued and there is an appeal against the enforcement notice, and when the appeal is decided by the Secretary of State or on his behalf it is found that, although this was a breach of planning control, nevertheless the local planning authority ought to have given planning permission for it in the first place. In those circumstances, the individual is entitled to no compensation whatever; so if the stop notice procedure is used to smash up a chap's business and he eventually proves that he ought to have been given planning permission, he is not entitled to a penny-piece of compensation. That made sense when you had only the enforcement notice: it does not make any sense at all if you introduce the stop notice procedure into the cases of change of user.
The third reason why I suggest that this argument about compensation is invalid is that anyone who wants to assert his rights of appeal and obtain compensation is in fact faced with a very difficult and complicated task in which he will inevitably require the assistance of legal advisers. He has to establish that he has suffered a loss which is directly attributable to the cessation of his activity or is attributable to an obligation which was put upon him

569
under contract. In the last resort, if the matter is in dispute, it has to go to the Land Tribunal, with all the expense and the difficulty which that entails. The procedure for appealing for compensation is one which is most difficult in the case of the smaller man, and it is with him and with the layman that I am chiefly concerned.
The third argument that was used—and it was used, I think, by the noble Baroness sitting on the Government Front Bench—was that if you were to amend this Bill to say that the stop notice procedure should be allowed only in cases where the change of user was offensive, there might be indefinite argument about what was offensive, and there might be argument in the magistrates' court, if a prosecution was instituted, as to whether the local planning authority had acted within their powers or ultra vires.
The second argument was this. Something which is offensive in one place on one occasion may not be offensive in another place on another occasion. I accept that argument. I think it would be wrong to try to put the word "offensive" before the word "activity" in Clause 1.
My Amendment is the most modest of all. It does not call for that at all. What my Amendment seeks to do is this. It is plain from just reading it:
"Before serving a stop notice the local planning authority shall have regard to the extent to which the activity or activities to be prohibited by it appear to be offensive and to the seriousness of the consequences of the prohibition for any person upon whom it is to be served".
This is an extremely modest suggestion. All it does is to call upon a local planning authority who have it in mind to issue a stop notice to halt before they do so and to consider as best they can how offensive, if offensive at all, this activity is—if it is not offensive it could await the outcome of the appeal procedure against the enforcement notice. Secondly, it calls upon them before issuing a stop notice to have regard to the seriousness of the consequences as they might be to the individual who is to be estopped. I am sorry that I have taken such a long time and I can promise I shall not take anything like as lone over any of the other Amendments in my name; but I hope the suggestions that I have made may be acceptable, first, to the noble Lord responsible for the Bill and, secondly, to the Government. I beg to move.
4.22 p.m.
Lord LYELL: I am sure that the Committee will be grateful for the detailed way in which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has spelled out his Amendment and explained it so carefully. He outlined what he had in mind at Second Reading but he has gone into great detail. I think he had no need to apologise, for it is a detailed and complicated subject as I am finding and as I am sure are other Members of the Committee. I am sure the noble Baroness opposite would agree that it is a detailed and difficult Bill. But, as I understand it, the issue here, and, in particular, with this Amendment, is whether the Bill itself should do any more than spell out the circumstances that a local authority should have regard to before taking a specific action in respect to a stop notice.
Perhaps it might be as well to approach it from the point of view that, first of all, the local planning authority has to exercise its collective judgment when it wants to consider whether or not enforcement action should be taken at all in respect of any breach or prospective or possible breach of planning control, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has pointed out, before any stop notice can be issued or action taken an enforcement notice must be issued.
In Section 87(1) of the 1971 Act we find that this subsection requires the local planning authority to consider very carefully—I think the words used are these—-"whether it is expedient" (a very strange Biblical term) "having regard to the provisions of the development plan and any other material consideration". I think that this particular requirement provides a link between the local planning authority's jurisdiction to take enforcement action in respect of those breaches of planning control and their function of dealing with planning applications in that it directs their attention to the planning merits and also to the fact that an enforcement notice should be served only if it is expedient to do so. Whether or not it is expedient to take that action depends on the particular circumstances of the case.
The most important issue in any case would be whether the activity is acceptable on planning merits. But experience has shown in cases of this type that even where

571
the activity causes harm or (dare I say?) offence to the area, the authority will in the majority of cases take enforcement action and issue an enforcement notice only as a last resort following a great deal of cumulative pressure upon them by local residents to take action; and this is the first action that they can take. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has pointed out, the service of a stop notice—and that is what my Bill deals with—is a separate action by the authority; and when the authority come to do that they must take a further decision whether they are going to take this grave step in addition to serving an enforcement notice. The question of whether the authority should or want to serve a stop notice must again, separately, be a question of their collective judgment, and it must be carried out in relation mainly to the planning interests. These interests are primarily the public interest in the locality concerned.
If we were to add to Section 90 of the Act by means of this Bill provisions as to the specific matters which the planning authority must take into consideration before serving a stop notice, this, it would appear, gives a great deal of scope for legal argument as to whether the authority acted lawfully in serving the stop notice. And when we come to "lawfully", there is a great deal of fertile ground for dispute and argument as to what is offensive and what is not offensive. In addition, to spell out particular and special things which ought, in some cases, to be taken into account and not to specify other equally important things could, and I believe would, imply that stop notices cannot be served unless these particular circumstances are present. This would provide scope for the validity of stop notices, in particular, to be challenged on mere technicalities.
The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, raises doubts in my mind on two grounds. I deal first with the requirement to have regard to the extent to which the activities appear to be offensive. This seems to prohibit the serving of a stop notice in any case unless the activities themselves are considered to be offensive. Of course, we are going to have trouble in defining the word "offensive" and, as I have suggested already, there would be considerable ground for legal argument and dispute
572
as to what is the precise meaning in particular circumstances, which could vary from place to place in the country, regardless of the general circumstances in which the breach has occurred.
One of the main purposes of Clause 1 of this Bill is to give local planning authorities the power to remedy the type of situation where a developer or some person has repeatedly flouted planning control by moving a use from one part of his land to another. Yet, as far as my instructions are at the moment, if this Amendment were to be accepted, the authority would be unable to serve a stop notice in such a case unless they could justify it on the special grounds that the activities are of such a nature that they not only warranted action being taken to prevent damage to the amenities of the area but also were offensive.
The Second problem that I have in considering this Amendment is that the formula,
"the local planning authority shall have regard to the … seriousness of the consequences of the prohibition for any person upon whom it is to be served"
is too general in that it does not appear to add anything material to the authority's present implied obligations or to have any tangible effect.
If I may reply to one or two points which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised, he was correct when he pointed out that it was objectionable that local planning authorities should use their powers oppressively under a stop notice scheme. Those in local planning inquiries and Secretary of State's inquiries are going to be saddled, if this Amendment is accepted, with the endless problem of the legal definition of what is offensive. The word, "offensive" might take on different meanings in different areas. In country areas various activities might be considered objectionable. Some activities in the North, in Yorkshire, might be thought acceptable whereas in rural parts of the West country they might be taken to be offensive, and vice versa. I can think of similar circumstances in Scotland but of course that is not covered by this Bill. The word, "offensive" could have too wide a meaning.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, raised the question of a small business. A particularly attractive example was the hair-

573
dressing business. He said that the harm would be minimal. Perhaps the noble Lord would consider it from the point of view of if his own neighbours started up a hairdressing business. The noble Lord might find that the incidence of traffic might be considerable at certain times, and not only he hut his other neighbours might find it objectionable.
Lord FOOT: It so happens—and the noble Lord could not possibly know this—that there is a hairdressing establishment within three doors of my home.
Lord LYELL: I am pleased that the noble Lord has personal experience of this business which is carried on in such a way that it does not provide an offensive situation, a traffic block and nuisance to the noble Lord; but I can envisage circumstances in which possibly a car hire firm could cause a nuisance to neighbours in a residential street with cars coming and going all through the day and night. A quiet residential street, possibly with children playing there in the holidays, could be turned into something with a traffic problem, a noise problem or general offence could be caused. The new activity could be offensive.
I take the point about compensation. The noble Lord raised the question of compensation not being payable on a successful appeal in an enforcement notice. That is not apposite to the Bill. However, he pointed out that compensation was payable in the case of a successful appeal against a stop notice. The main point that the noble Lord had was that compensation would not be adequate remuneration for the ruination of a particular businessman and of the loss of all his investment.
The Bill we are discussing this afternoon does not seek to be oppressive. I feel that the neighbours who feel oppressed would bring pressure to bear upon their district or local council and thus pressure would be brought to bear on the local council and hence the local planning authority. Does the noble Lord. Lord Foot, consider that they too have what I hope would be equal rights?
The noble Lord is correct when he mentions two examples of small businesses. He mentioned one very successful business which clearly provides no flagrant
574
offences or major breach of planning control. It might provide a technical breach of planning control. There might be a possibility that a local authority might issue what would seem to be an oppressive enforcement notice. But I wonder whether this is the case. Certainly my Bill does not seek to enter into this arena of oppressiveness, nor does it seek to try to give a definition to the word, "offensive". Lord Foot's Amendment may have a certain amount of merit, but I am afraid that I cannot see my way at the moment to accepting the Amendment and seeing how it fits into the Bill and the object of the Bill, in spite of the detailed way in which the noble Lord spelt out his Amendment.
4.35 p.m.
Lord HALE: The discussion to which we have listened has given me a certain amount of disquiet, not least Lord Lyell's statement that a hairdressing establishment might be offensive and might, by implication of his argument, be so offensive that it should be closed down summarily by a stop notice if an enforcement notice has not been complied with. I would have thought it was not sufficiently offensive to be cut immediately with a complete transfer of all the customers to some adjoining place.
Hairdressing these days is a very considerable service. One activity of someone I know intimately is driving old-age pensioners in South London to hairdressers because it is impossible for the pensioners to travel. There may well be a case for establishing a quiet little branch where the old-age pensioners can be served more conveniently and better.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has gone a shade further than I would have done in his tribute to the rationality of local authorities. I have never regarded the town hall as necessarily the seat of all wisdom; and we did establish an Ombudsman for local authorities with power to investigate fully in this very special field, in the case of the arbitrary use of planning powers in the various Acts. I found myself listening to a television programme some weeks ago, the Esther Rantzen show, where they were dealing with the exercise of the powers of the local Ombudsman and expressing some surprise and

575
giving in detail three cases, each of which raised the issue of housing and planning, the individual planning of a house, in which the Ombudsman had made a long investigation. He had sent his report to the local authority and the local authority had replied that they did not intend to do anything about it. They had examined his report in depth. One council adjoins my own, and of which I know nothing else except that it is within two or three miles of my house in Croydon.
The person who claimed to be seriously injured by the action of the authority asked what other steps she could take. She was told that she could go back to the Ombudsman. She went back and the Ombudsman—not, we assume, without I touch of indignation that was not expressed—made a further careful investigation and review. He submitted a report, and the council said that they did not propose to pay any compensation or take any action.
I should not have thought, therefore, that the chance of getting compensation from some councils in respect of measures like this is likely, unless the law is made so clear that a right to compensation is expressed. As I read the Statutes at the moment, no such right is very clearly expressed, particularly in the field of the transfer of business. In a private Committee upstairs, we have been considering EEC proposals for dealing with credit trading and so on. I was astonished to find that there is one association which has about 400 agents operating on private premises. They say that the person who operates the business buys a good deal of stuff for himself (or, more usually, herself) and has neighbours in to see samples, catalogues and so on. This is apparently a very extensive business. Could that be said to be offensive, if a number of people call with their cars?
I venture to suggest that with a change of business, the operation of a stop notice is infinitely more serious than when all it is designed to do is to hold up some building or construction operation, seriously though that may operate. Indeed, if it is a new activity, as it usually will be, the person gets his stop notice just at the point when he is beginning to develop a connection, which that stop notice then destroys instantaneously, without any
576
remedy. Things in this sphere do not move very rapidly, so an operation would be destroyed for some time, and perhaps destroyed beyond resuscitation.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has had many consultations, as has the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—because I know the very great care he always takes over these measures—but I venture to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has tried to draw this Amendment in the most modest fashion, supporting the Bill. Unless a formula can be found, I personally would support the Amendment on a Division.
4.43 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who moved the Amendment and also to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, because I was not here at the beginning of the debate. The previous Business collapsed rather suddenly while I was still searching my soul about the notices.
I would begin by being quite frank about this and saying that I had considerable personal misgivings about the problems of the stop notice in relation to the very point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in his Amendment. He also raised it on Second Reading. First, may I say that this is a personal statement, although it can be a Governmental statement, because I usually find myself on the same side as he is in areas of the rights of the individual. Secondly, I have a great respect for what the organisation, Justice, of which the noble Lord is vice-president, has to say. I thought it required considerable investigation, which I have carried out since Second Reading and I have also discussed the matter with colleagues.
I feel that the noble Lord has really proved the existence of a difficulty himself, since he has accepted the difficulty of having to define the word "offensive". He has done so by putting in the most innocuous or simple words; that is, "appearing to be offensive". So he has tried to move away from the difficulty of definition and has accepted—as I was in any case going to say—that as regards the Dobry Report it is one thing to refer to an activity described as "offensive", but it then becomes very much more

577
difficult somehow to interpret that in legislation, which is what we are concerned with today. That is the first point.
It also seems to me that what we are concerned with are the elements that have to he taken into account by the local authority, the planning authority, when planning matters are being discussed. The environmental effects obviously must be taken into account—perhaps one should use that word rather than the word "offensive"—and they are obviously one of the criteria that have to be used.
Perhaps my noble friend Lord Hale overlooked the point that before a stop notice is served an enforcement notice has to be served; so there is no question of something appearing summarily. Incidentally, my noble friend made several references to the Ombudsman, or the Commissioner for Local Administration. It is interesting, if one looks both at their reports and discusses with them what has come before them, to note that most of the pressure upon them has been in the planning content. That has come from individuals and residents asking that more should be done about their complaints over alleged contraventions of planning control. That is the important point of trying to tighten up planning law in this area by means of this Bill, to which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, says that he agrees in the larger context.
If we are getting back to the use of the word "offensive"—although the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has drafted it in a rather different way from the way he spoke about it on Second Reading—it seems to me that by doing it in this way it is almost tautological, because it is something which ought to be, and is, taken into account when planning is considered and which in any case would be part of any appeal under the appeals procedure.
When one comes to the second part of the Amendment, I think I must say, with respect, that we are on rather slippery ground. Here I am talking about the seriousness of the consequences of the prohibition for any person on whom it is to be served. There are two points here. Take, for example, the case of the closing of a particular plant that might not be a serious blow to a particular industrialist; it might be part of his whole enterprise, and it might be causing him quite a lot
578
of trouble anyhow. Nevertheless, the closing of it could involve a considerable number of people being put out of work. Such a circumstance would be outside what is mentioned in the Amendment, because the stop notice would be served on the owner concerned, or the industrialist, and not on the workpeople. Therefore, you would not be protecting a certain number of people who probably should be protected.
Then there is a wider point, whether one ought really to be judging if something is right or wrong because of the effect on the person. There has been a recent case on this point and there is a great deal of discussion on the criminal law as to whether you should take into account then the effect on the person concerned of what the sentence, or whatever it is, should be.
One is getting into extremely difficult waters if one is arguing along those lines. We get back to the rather more prosaic point of why this legislation is considered necessary, and why the Government are supporting the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in his Bill: that is, that planning law has been brought into disrepute by people repeatedly contravening it. Therefore, we want to enable local authorities to take quicker and more effective action. We do not want this to be a self-defeating exercise because of the length of time taken over appeals and enforcement notices. This is why we believe that local authorities should not be restrained from serving stop notices, where it is clear that there have been repeated flagrant contraventions of planning controls.
I certainly do not dissent from the view of the noble Lord, Lord Foot. As I said, authorities should take account of the matters he has mentioned, among others. Certainly, my Department—this was stated in another place—will give guidance to local authorities on the exercise of the powers, and when we do so the points that have been made, and made extremely effectively by the noble Lord, will be very much borne in mind. I would say with great respect, getting away from the words and the drafting, that the substance of his Amendment is something which should be in the guidelines to a piece of legislation, and not in the Statute itself.
4.52 p.m.
Lord FOOT: I am very grateful to everybody who has taken part in this short debate, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for the support which he has given to me. I should like to deal very briefly with the arguments that have been used against my Amendment. The first one which was used by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and repeated, in effect, by the noble Baroness, is that if you were to pass an Amendment of this kind there would be some legal difficulty in trying to interpret what the word "offensive" means. The whole object of my putting the Amendment in this form, rather than trying to introduce the word "offensive" prior to the word "activity", is to avoid legal argument about what the word means. I speak now as a lawyer, and I see that there are one or two other lawyers in the Chamber. If you pass this form of words as an Amendment to the Bill, I would say with respect that the belief that there will be argument in the courts as to whether a local authority indeed had regard to the essential offensiveness of what was being done, is to my mind completely unfounded. May I tell the Committee why? There are very many precedents on the Statute Book where a duty is laid upon some authority and the Act says something to this effect, that in exercising their jurisdiction in this matter the authority concerned—or it may be the court—shall have regard to the following factors. It has never been suggested, so far as I know, that when something is expressed in that way the decision of the authority is open to challenge on the ground that they did not have regard to those factors.
If I may quote a very recent case, which some noble Lords may remember, when the Bail Bill was going through this House it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who proposed an Amendment saying, in effect, that where a court was considering the question of bail it should have regard to the following factors, and there were set out seven things to which the court was required to have regard. So far as I know, nobody has ever suggested—if I am wrong about this, then I may be challenged by somebody who knows better about the law—that if magistrates refused bail the person who was aggrieved could then go to a higher court and say, "I want bail.
580
I am entitled to bail, because the magistrates failed to have regard to the factors to which they ought to have had regard."
Similarly, when we were considering the Countryside Act, about 10 years ago, there was a special section inserted into that Act which stated that every Government Department, when considering legislation, orders or Ministerial directives shall have regard to the effect upon the environment. Is it conceivable that there could ever be a case where somebody could go to a court and say, "This order which has now been made is ultra Tires, because the Government Department concerned did not have regard to the environment"? I am afraid that this is unarguable, and both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are wrong about it. My form of words would effectively preclude the courts from entering into a discussion as to whether or not the activity was offensive. That is the first point that I would make.
The second point which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made was when he questioned whether I was right in saying that under the terms of the 1971 Act, as amended by this Bill, if an enforcement notice is issued in respect of some activity or use and a stop notice is issued, and there is then an appeal against the enforcement notice and the inspector decides that planning permission ought to have been given in the first instance, the aggrieved party has no right to compensation. I am afraid that he is wrong about that.
If he will look at Clause 2(3) of his own Bill he will see that it says:
"In subsection (2)"—
that is referring to subsection (2) of Section 177 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—
"(circumstances in which right to compensation arises) for paragraphs (a) and (b) (enforcement notice quashed or varied on certain grounds) there shall be substituted the following paragraphs—
'(a) the enforcement notice is quashed on grounds other than those mentioned in paragraph (a)'."
If he will look back at the section, he will see that what it does is this. It repeats, in connection with enforcement notices and stop notices, that if, eventually, an enforcement notice is turned down and declared invalid on the ground that planning permission ought to have been

581
granted in the first place, then the aggrieved person has no right to compensation, whether the matter was dealt with under an enforcement notice only or under an enforcement notice and a stop notice. So that there is no virtue in that argument.
May I now turn to the comments made by the noble Baroness. If I may say so, she did not appear to me to be speaking to the Committee with the conviction that she usually carries. That may be because, as she was good enough to say, she herself was a little exercised earlier on as to whether we had got it right. But she said, extraordinarily enough, that the first part of my Amendment, the part which says that a local planning authority shall have regard to the question whether an activity appears to be offensive, is tautological. She said that it is unnecessary, because that is what they will do, anyway. But if it is unnecessary, is any harm done in spelling it out explicitly in an Act of Parliament? My whole object is to try to ensure that when a local planning authority are considering the stop notice procedure, they should hold back and consider the factors to which I have drawn attention. If it is tautological, what possible harm is done by explicitly stating it in the Act of Parliament? So far as the second part of my case is concerned—
Baroness BIRK: I thought I covered that point by saying that it would be very much more appropriate, although the noble Lord may not agree with me, if this were contained in the guidelines which will be given to local authorities. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that we do not want to lumber legislation with things which should not be in it.
Lord FOOT: I was going to deal with that point; it is a perfectly valid one for the noble Baroness to make. The difficulty, however, as the noble Baroness will perfectly well know, is this. If you want an authority to behave in a particular way and, instead of putting it into a Statute you leave it to a Home Office circular or a Department of the Environment directive, it has not the same force. If you put it into a Statute what happens is that, whenever a local planning authority are considering a stop notice, immediately the clerk will draw their attention to the fact that by Statute they are required to have regard to these two factors. A
582
Department of the Environment circular has no such effect. After it is issued it may remain in cubbyholes collecting dust in local authority departments, and is never resurrected. As the noble Baroness knows, it has happened over and over again that circulars and directives of that kind are forgotten in the course of time. Very often the Department has to issue another circular drawing the attention of local authorities to the matter to which it drew their attention in the first place. We had this argument over various Home Office measures. It has been constantly said, "By issuing a circular you can ensure that the magistrates get it right". The disadvantage of doing that is that so often the circular is forgotten after a period of time has elapsed.
The last point that I should mention is this. So far as the second part of my Amendment is concerned—that is, the local planning authority should have regard to the seriousness of the consequences of the prohibition for any individual—the noble Baroness says it does not go far enough and that one ought to say that not only shall the local planning authority have regard to the seriousness of the consequences for the individual applicant, the person who wants to engage in this activity, but that further protection ought to be provided for all the people who might be rendered unemployed. I have no objection to putting that in if we can work out a form of words for it, but surely it is very remarkable when a representative of the Government comes to the Committee and says, with regard to my Amendment, that the first part of it is unnecessary, because it is tautological, and that the second part does not go far enough.
Baroness BIRK: I am sorry, but I did not say that. I said that the way in which the Amendment is drafted does not seem to me to have the effect which the noble Lord has in mind. We are speaking to that Amendment. The noble Lord must not put words into my mouth. It is up to him if he wishes to draft another Amendment. I was pointing out to the noble Lord that his Amendment does not seem to me to fulfil his intentions. Therefore the Amendment itself is not valid. I was not suggesting that the noble Lord should or should not do anything about it.
Lord FOOT: I am much obliged. I cannot take the matter any further. Indeed, I should not do so. I am not content that I should withdraw the Amendment. At the same time, I will see what support I get before I decide whether to proceed to a Division.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
5.5 p.m.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) the use of land as a caravan site by a travelling showman within the meaning of paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 who has taken up winter quarters on such land as provided in that paragraph, or"
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This Amendment is directed towards the special and, I think I can successfully show, unique situation of travelling showmen—the men who run the fairs, with which we are all so familiar, all over the country. Even the most staid of your Lordships must at some time have paid to go on a dodgem car, or to shy at coconuts, or to come down a helter-skelter, which is not very easy for grown-ups to do in dignified posture. From about March to November of each year these showmen are travelling around the country to various fairs with their fairground equipment. They have their equipment and machines, and also lorries and trailers to carry the machines. However, in this climate of ours very few people want to go to fairs between November and March; it is too cold and wet. Therefore, for three or four months of the year the showmen are off the road, and they have to find a site with planning permission, on which they can place not only their caravans, which are their homes, but also their equipment and vehicles. This is one of the respects in which the travelling showmen are unique.
They cannot drop their equipment and vehicles somewhere and go off in their caravan homes elsewhere to enjoy themselves during those months. Throughout that time the equipment needs their presence and attention and their safeguarding and protection. Indeed, one may truthfully say that for practical purposes their caravans and equipment form a single and indivisible unit.
As it stands, Clause 1 of the Bill provides for a new subsection (2) in Section 90 of the 1971 Act, which is clearly based on the principle that a stop notice must not be used to deprive people of their homes at short notice. Paragraph (b) of the new subsection at the top of page 2 protects a caravan which is a person's only home or, at any rate, his main home. However, unless my Amendment is accepted, a local authority could still serve a stop notice on the fairground equipment of a showman in his winter quarters. This would have just the same effect as a stop notice on his home; that is, the caravan. He could not move the equipment elsewhere and not go along with it himself. He could not leave it unattended on a roadside verge or elsewhere.
As it has come to us from another place, the effect of the Bill is to discriminate against this one type of caravan dweller—the travelling showman—in his winter quarters. I am quite sure that this is not intended, and that this has happened by inadvertence. However, this is the practical effect of paragraph (b) as it has come to us, and the object of my Amendment is, quite simply, to remove that discrimination.
Some of your Lordships may wonder why I am interested in this subject, and very briefly I will explain. I was Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1960 and was responsible for putting on to the Statute Book the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 which is mentioned in the Bill. After that Bill had been published and, I think, before it received its Second Reading I had become convinced that special provision must be made for the winter quarters of the travelling showmen because of their unique situation, and that it would have discriminated against them if the Bill had reached the Statute Book in its original form. Therefore I agreed to an Amendment which was directed towards suiting travelling showmen in their special situation. So far as I know, that Amendment was approved by all parts of both Houses and again, so far as I know, since then it has never given any trouble. What I am asking your Lordships to do now is to recognise the special position of the showmen and to ensure that this Bill does not discriminate against them.
Finally, while lam well aware of some of the difficult situations which have given rise to the need for this Bill—a Bill which I thoroughly support—so far as I know no misbehaviour on the part of travelling showmen has been alleged as a reason for this Bill. There has been what one might term "misbehaviour" by certain other kinds of person which has necessitated the introduction of this idea of the stop notice, but certainly nobody has charged the travelling showmen with being part of the cause why this Bill is necessary. I hope what I have said will carry conviction and will persuade your Lordships that it is desirable that specific attention should be given to the special problem of travelling showmen. I beg to move.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to support the Amendment moved so succinctly and with such feeling by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and to give an example of how travelling showmen can be helped. I agree with the noble Lord that they give great pleasure to many people; we have all enjoyed their efforts to make life somewhat brighter and they are good citizens. Therefore I think they should receive consideration.
In the City of Plymouth there is a ring of what are known as "Palmerston Forts" and one of these has been given over to showmen on payment for a lease. In renegotiating this lease for another 10 years the rent required has risen by £300 a year to £2,750 a year and the local Western section are prepared to pay this. Of course this means an increase for each individual showman, and there are 20 to 25 families on this site. They are asking the council to agree that retired members and invalids should be able to stay there all the year round. As my noble friend mentioned, there are restrictions and they are asking not to be restricted under the 1960 Act which sets a period of restriction from October to March. This has not been finally settled, but I am told that the council appears to be viewing it favourably. I should have thought this was a good example that if the travelling showmen are given the opportunity they can have a permanent home.
Regrettably these travelling showmen are so often classified as gipsies or other travellers. Strangely, under our laws special provisions are made for these
586
people. The showmen are prepared to find their own sites and if planning permission is refused then they have to find another. It is necessary to remember that the caravans are their only homes; they are not second homes. There are between 3,000 and 4,000 of these peoples who are welcomed by provincial cities and others from April until October by virtue of Class XXII of the General Development Order of 1977 and paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960. Therefore, during a period of years they have the protection of the law but during the first year they may become wanderers.
There is also further protection against these people becoming a nuisance because if they erect sheds or buildings or even put down hard standings on the site without planning permission they can readily be stopped under Section 90 of the 1971 Act. As amended, the stop notice provision contained in this Bill would mean a great deal of hardship to many people. Showmen and their families with nowhere else to go may be forced to move at three days' notice from a site which—and I want to make a special point of this—they have the owner's permission to occupy, and in some cases they have actually bought the site. This seems to me to be extremely unfair. They can still appeal, of course, but compensation provisions are not applicable to them. The only ground on which the appeal is likely to be allowed is Section 88(1) of the 1972 Act. Therefore, their only alternative from crippling stop notice penalties will be to move to the roadside and to put their caravans on the verges or on any space they can find. I do not think that would be helpful. It would create a problem for the landowners and for the local authorities and would not be approved by the Ministry for the Environment.
So, I should like to suggest that unfortunately this discrimination against travelling showmen and their accompanying vehicles is not covered by this Bill although they occupy caravans as their sole residences. The object of the proposed new subsection must be to prevent homelessness. We are all worried about homelessness and we have had many debates on it in this House. Therefore, why should we attempt to create more homelessness under this Bill? My final point is that in my

587
view one caravan community should not be placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the others for whom we have already produced legislation. Therefore, I support the Amendment.
5.16 p.m.
Baroness BACON: I should like to make a brief intervention in support of this Amendment. The travelling showmen are very law-abiding people and I cannot think of any instance where they have caused trouble. They are in a unique position with regard to their winter quarters and we also have to bear in mind that over the last 10 years or so the travelling showmen have felt rather upset at the fact that they have lost so many of the sites for their fairs during the summer months. I know that many travelling showmen have the one site on which they live year after year, from November to March. Their children go to school in that place and I have known of instances where the showmen have left their children with other people who live in the area during the summer months so that they might continue to attend school in the areas to which their parents returned in the winter time. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will accept this Amendment, because, as has been said, this is a unique position and if the Bill is not amended in this way it means that there will be discrimination against this one class of people.
Lord FOOT: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to say that this Amendment has my support and I very much hope that, since it has been supported from all sides of the Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, at the very least will say that he will give this matter further consideration.
Lord LYELL: Naturally, I should like first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, for moving this Amendment so eloquently, and I thank all the other Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate on this Amendment. I hope I can make it quite clear at the outset that, so far as this Amendment relates to the stationing of any residential caravan which is the home of the showman in his winter quarters, I think the Amendment is not necessary. But the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has gone considerably further than that in his explanation.
588
In paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of the new Section 90 which is to be inserted into the Act by Clause 1 of the Bill it is provided that a stop notice may not prohibit the use of any land as a site for a caravan which is occupied by any person as his only or his main residence. Of course, for this purpose the word "caravan" has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred. Indeed, I think it may have been his own work when he was in another "incarnation" in another place.
If then a travelling showman were to use a caravan site, as normally his caravan is his only or main residence, he cannot be served with a stop notice in respect of the residential caravan. That is laid down in paragraph (b) in Clause 2(2) of the Bill. The noble Lord has hinted fairly strongly in that direction, and I think the support that has come from the Committee for his Amendment is aimed at trying to secure that the travelling showman should also have specific exemption from stop notice action in respect of his equipment, or, if necessary, in respect of the storage of the equipment on the land which he uses as winter quarters for his residential and home caravan.
Paragraph 10(1) of Schedule 1 to the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 already provides an exemption from the need to obtain what is called a site licence for the use of land as a caravan site by a travelling showman in certain circumstances. These circumstances will include such use of the land by the travelling showman, both while travelling—I think that would come into the category explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Bacon—and when he has taken up winter quarters. There is something rather complicated called Class XXII of Schedule 1 to the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977. Class XXII grants a general planning permission to use land as a caravan site in certain circumstances where a site licence is not required. This includes the use by travelling showmen. But I am afraid the use of land by travelling showmen as winter quarters is specifically excluded from this general provision, and this is another loophole which has been spelled out by the noble

589
Lord, Lord Brooke. Therefore, no exemption from planning control is currently given to travelling showmen in respect of their winter quarters.
The object of the Bill before us today is to provide local planning authorities with the power to deal quickly with any development which is carried out without planning permission, where that development, or any part of it, is causing problems and it is unacceptable to let it continue during the normal time that enforcement proceedings would take. Certainly an activity which could cause problems in one area may well not cause them in another. Therefore, we think that for this reason it would not be appropriate to prescribe a list of uses or activities in respect of which a stop notice action may or may not be taken. Of course, the problems of travelling showmen should and indeed are considered against this background. Already Members of the Committee will see that the provisions of the Bill provide exemptions from stop notice action. First, nobody can be driven from his home at short notice. Secondly, this same protection is provided to permanent caravan dwellers; this is not holiday or temporary caravan dwellers. The same protection is given to residential dwellers in their houses, and I think that covers caravans. Thirdly, the use of the stop notice procedure is confined to activities commenced in the last 12 months. That is unless the activity involves operations—that would be building or digging or excavation operations—or the depositing of refuse or waste material. I do not think travelling showmen carry out anything of this nature.
I understand it is the case—I have been learning from the contributions of the Committee—that showmen tend to use land as their base not for a continuous period but for five or possibly six months, when the weather is bad and they are not putting on outdoor entertainments in or around cities. I am given to understand that where a showman has used some particular base as his residential area, and with his residential caravan has parked his equipment, his trailers and whatever else he wishes to take with him, when he has used such land for at least the last two winters, he will benefit by the provision in the Bill in exactly the same way as anyone else. We believe that the Amendment would cut across the fairly limited
590
objects of this Bill. I might call them defensive objects, in that the objects of the Bill are to defend outside interests, neighbours, anyone, including the travelling showman. We believe it would be wrong to exempt any particular group of citizens, including the travelling showmen, from the control of the Bill.
In exercising new powers under the Bill, the local planning authorities will need to satisfy themselves that what they have alleged in any enforcement notice or any stop notice is a breach of planning control, is, as a matter of law and as a matter of fact and degree, a breach of control. Otherwise, they could be liable to heavy claims for compensation. We believe that, unless a person is carrying on any activity which is not only in breach of the planning control but is also causing severe damage or nuisance or offence to the amenities of adjoining occupiers, he does not have much to fear from the extension of the stop notice that we are proposing.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, spelled out particularly the circumstances in which the travelling showmen go round the country. He thought it might be possible that this Bill would separate showmen from their equipment during the winter. But I wonder whether it is reasonable to attempt to bring into the Bill—and this, I believe, would be the effect of the Amendment—the rules of caravan residence, because I believe it is important also to recognise the rights of neighbours to showmen, who may well have grounds for objection. I take the point that nowhere, in the studies I have made in another place, has misbehavour in specific cases or in general been alleged in respect of travelling showmen. But, nevertheless, we believe at the moment that if this Amendment were to be written into the Bill as it stands it would discriminate in favour of showmen.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, believes that the Bill at present discriminates against showmen. We believe that, if the Amendment were written into the Bill, the Bill would then discriminate in favour of showmen. We accept that their behaviour has up to now been good, but we are a little worried that there might be similar pressure from other groups who up till now have not been guilty of any misbehaviour. I have been given the example that other travelling people

591
might be able to use the Amendment to operate other forms of activity which might be a little more objectionable than merely parking travelling caravans and equipment and floats. It is for that reason that I do not feel able to accept immediately the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. I am sorry that I cannot go further than that. I have listened to all the arguments, but I am afraid I cannot promise to accept the Amendment at the moment.
Baroness BIRK: May I make a very brief intervention, as time is getting on and the House has other business after this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has covered all the ground of the objections to this Amendment, which the Government share with him. I do think it is very difficult to find any justification for providing that people following a particular trade or activity should be set apart and not subject to the same constraints which would be placed on others. I know there is a rather romantic and emotional connotation with travelling showmen.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, made it quite clear that the residential use of their caravans was protected and covered. But, when it comes down to the work side of it, they would be no worse off than the scrap dealer who also could have a stop notice put on his work. What is interesting is that in the last four years there has been only one enforcement notice made against a travelling showman. This would seem to indicate that it really is not a problem. They may be worried in advance, but as an enforcement notice must be issued first, before there is any question of a stop notice, this would appear to indicate that they are certainly not at risk, even in the terms stated by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. It is the development plans that must make positive provision, and I do not believe that this matter should be dealt with by making an exception in this way. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will support the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, in resisting this Amendment.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: I am most grateful for the support that I have received from all quarters in the Committee, and also for the care which my noble friend Lord Lyell and the
592
Minister have applied to the debate. However, quite frankly, I am bound to say that in my speech I dealt with and disposed of every one of the points that they made. I had hoped that my noble friend would say that there is something here which needs to be examined. But I am sorry to say that the effect of his speech and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, leads me to think that there is no chance—except by forceful persuasion—of him or the Government taking an entirely fresh look at the matter. If that is indeed the case, having received support from all Parties, I am afraid that I must test the opinion of the Committee by pressing this Amendment to a Division.
Lord LYELL: Before the noble Lord takes that step perhaps I could say that I hope I was not needlessly harsh or used needless asperity. I do not know whether the noble Lord definitely feels that he wants to test the opinion of the Committee by pressing this matter to a Division, but I should be prepared to look again at the matter. However, as understand it, the matter has been raised in a similar form in another place. There may be merit in it, but I hope that I spelt out the reasons for wishing to keep the Bill in its present form.
The noble Lord used the word "discrimination". If the Amendment is carried, I believe that there would be discrimination in favour of showmen. That suggestion was supported by the noble Baroness on the Government Front Bench. I would certainly undertake to look at this, but I cannot promise to find anything further—certainly at this stage—which could definitely satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Brooke.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: The last thing I want to do is to quarrel with my noble friend or, indeed, with the noble Baroness over this. I am still left with a feeling that the minds of both my noble friend and the Minister are set against this Amendment. It seems to me quite absurd—if I may use that word—to allege that if this Amendment is carried it would discriminate against other types of people. I surely have shown beyond doubt that the Bill, unamended, discriminates against the travelling showman. For that reason, and with time getting on, I must press this to a Division.
5.35p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
5.43 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert—
("( ) For the purposes of this section where the activity is of a seasonal nature and began more than twelve months earlier it shall be deemed to have begun twelve months earlier even if the activity has not been continuous since it began".)
The noble Lord said: I fully appreciate that we have spent quite a long time on this Amendment Bill, and I shall try to be as brief as I can in all these further Amendments. On Amendment No. 3 I think I need say only a few words. As we know, under Clause 1(2) of the Bill we have set out the cases in which the stop notice procedure is not to he used. Unhappily, dealing with the case of the
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Dundee, E.

Northchurch, B.

Allerton, L.

Eccles, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Alport, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Pannell, L.

Arwyn, L.

Falkland, V.

Porritt, L.

Bacon, B.

Foot, L.

Roberthall, L.

Banks, L.

Gainford, L.

Rochester, L.

Berkeley, B.

Glenkinglas, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bethell, L.

Grey, E.

Selkirk, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Hale, L.

Strathspey, L.

Blyton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sufficld, L.

Boothby, L.

Henley, L.

Swinfen, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L. [Teller.]

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Thurso, V.

Byers, L.

Inglewood, L.

Vickers, B. [Teller.]

Cathcart, E.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Marley, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Cranbrooke, E.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wigoder, L.

de Clifford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Janner, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privv Seal)

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Phillips, B.

Aylestone, L.

Leatherland, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Birk, B.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Rusholme, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Sandys, L.

Caradon, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stedman, B.

Clancarty, E.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Maelor, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Monck, V.

Trefgarne, L.

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

Morris, L.

Vaizey, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Newall, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Northfield, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Henderson, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Oram, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

showman, by a majority of one it is still provided that it can be used against them. The people I am concerned with here are the people who use land on a seasonal basis. I hope that it is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and indeed of the Government, that those people, if the seasonal activity began more than 12 months ago, should be protected from the stop procedure. The whole purpose of my Amendment is to ensure that that is made explicit.
It may be—and I hope it is the case—that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will be able to say that this Amendment is acceptable to him. It is only for the elimination of doubt. The way in which doubt could arise, I suggest, is this. Supposing a seasonal user is prosecuted for failing to obey a stop notice. If the issue then comes before magistrates, I as it will, and the magistrates have then

595
to decide whether it was the intention of Parliament that the seasonal user of land should be protected even if his use had not been continuous, they might be left in doubt as to how they should decide the matter, and it might well be that it would lead to the case going to the divisional court in order that the divisional court could decide what the law was. All that could be eliminated if the noble Lord accepted my Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord JANNER: I should like to support this Amendment. Let me say at once that this Amendment, together with a number of others which appear on the Marshalled List, has been carefully considered by the people who practise in the courts. I am talking, of course, about the Law Society and their members. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has a vast experience in the direction of court usages and magistrates' decisions.
I do not think that anyone will for one moment suggest that an Amendment of this nature can possibly do any damage. After all, the question of a seasonal use is something which can only affect those who are participating in a certain objective and can only act in a particular way at seasonal times. I do not think that one ought to protract the debate on this much longer. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, will accept this Amendment.
5.48 p.m.
Lord LYELL: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foot, for moving this Amendment, but I find myself in a little difficulty in that it appears that subsection (2) of the new Section 90 which I am introducing seems to restrict the circumstances in which the stop notice would be served. I hope that that is absolutely right. One of these restrictions seems to be that the stop notice would not prevent the continuation of any activity which began more than 12 months earlier—I think this is covered by the queries raised by the noble Lords, Lord Janner and Lord Foot—unless that activity is incidental to building, engineering, mining, or any other objectionable operations like depositing refuse or waste. I think that the last exclusion in relation to operations of tipping maintains the present position
596
under the existing law, because at the moment stop notices can be served only in respect of such operations and there is no time limit.
I hope I understood it aright when I listened to the noble Lord's brief explanation. The Amendment seems to be based on the assumption that where an activity is not carried out continuously—I think that is what he had in mind and continues to have in mind—then the resumption of that activity after some interval could he interpreted in the divisional court as the beginning of that activity again. I am not a lawyer, and the noble Lords, Lord Foot and Lord Janner, are eminently qualified and experienced solicitors, but from my instructions and from what I can understand of the law the view which we believe is expressed by the Amendment does not run parallel to the accepted interpretation of planning law.
So far as any seasonal use of the land is concerned, then this principle seems apparently to be well established by some case law. There is an authority in the Court of Appeal, which I am told is Webber v MHLG. I do not know whether that rings a bell with the noble Lord, Lord Foot. Certainly I am not well acquainted with the particular circumstances of that case. I understand the decision ran something like this: the intermittent nature of the use of the land is immaterial and where land is used regularly for a period each year for certain purposes—such as caravanning, as we were discussing on the last Amendment—the use of the land for that purpose does not cease when the activity in any one year ceases because the active resumption of its use in the next year does not constitute a material change of use. We want to consider whether the use is immune from enforcement and, to do this, we must consider the first occasion on which the seasonal use commenced and whether that is taken as the date when the use began.
Further, even it it were thought that for the purpose of avoiding doubt there should he some provision in the Bill—this is the opinion of the noble Lords, Lord Foot and Lord Janner—which would state in terms that the 12-months period referred to in Clause 1(2) read, "in the case of intermittent activities from the first date when the activity began", the Amendment would not achieve that object

597
because it appears to be drafted to cover seasonal uses. That might cover, say, the parking of caravans or showmen's equipment, but it would not cover other kinds of non-continuous activities, which might be markets taking place at irregular intervals or, alternatively, objectionable irregular uses such as the burning of car tyres, scrap or the dumping of offensive material, agricultural waste and so on.
By introducing a specific reference to seasonal activities, the Amendment might make worse the position of anybody carrying on other intermittent activities such as I have outlined, because the provision, as we were discussing on the last Amendment, might be interpreted as meaning that the 12-month period does not continue to run except in the case of seasonal activities, and that could exclude the other non-seasonal but irregular activities which I have suggested.
I hope that my reply will not be taken by Lord Foot as being a closed door. I have noted what he said, but I hope that, rather than push it at this stage, he would be willing to meet me to discuss the matter between now and Report. Would he consider that satisfactory? However, I cannot promise him anything at this stage, but Lord Foot and I have had preliminary discussions and perhaps he will allow those to continue.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I should have thought that the Amendment did precisely what I want it to do, which is to protect the seasonal people. If it does not protect others, as my noble friend Lord Lyell has pointed out, then that is a matter for somebody else to deal with if they have strong feelings about who the others may be. My noble friend seemed to by saying that he did not think it was necessary because in law the point was well established. If ever there was a case where belt and braces were justified, this is one: As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said, it would make it clearer for those who might have to deal with any differences of view that might arise, and that is always a good thing.
We must face the fact that on this matter the people I have in mind and who I would like to protect under the seasonal argument are those who have to face resistance from tiny minorities in an area
598
often, in my view, for selfish and parochial reasons; they are the sort of people who are likely to push to the ultimate if there is the tiniest chance that the protection is not included in the way we want it to be included.
If the Amendment is not necessary it should still be accepted, because it would not do any harm. Indeed, it could do good in the sense of removing any possible doubt that may exist. If others should be included and given the some protection for other reasons, that is another argument, but that should not delay our giving protection to the seasonal people who, because of their tradition and the contribution they make to the general leisure activities of the country, should be given this protection now.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, explained absolutely clearly what is in the Bill and why the Amendment is not necessary. The essential feature of the Bill is that if an activity commenced more than 12 months ago it should be immune from a stop notice action, though an enforcement motice may be served and eventually require the activity to cease. Lord Lyell was right when he pointed out that although the Amendment would underline the protection which is implicit in the Bill for seasonal people, it would, by specifying it in the way proposed, leave out people who, say, had a stall every Sunday.
However, as there seems to be some concern because the clause does not specifically state that an activity begun more than 12 months ago does not have to be continuous to secure the protection intended, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Foot, would agree to my looking at the matter together with Lord Lyell and my officials and return to the subject before Third Reading.
Lord FOOT: Those assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, are quite good enough for me. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, will not think that I am deserting the cause when I say that I would rather proceed by consensus than by opposition. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.57 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
("(10) Any reference in this section to the period allowed for compliance with an enforcement notice is a reference to the period specified in the notice for compliance therewith or such extended period as the local planning authority may allow for compliance with the notice".)
The noble Lord said: I hope it will be convenient for the Committee to consider Amendment No. 6 at the same time. This Amendment does not touch the purposes of the Bill but is concerned simply with the way in which we draw our Statute law. It is rather a technical point and, so that the Committee may know what it is all about, perhaps I should explain that under Clause 1(4)(b) a stop notice ceases to have effect when the period allowed for compliance with the enforcement notice expires. A practitioner who is trying to deal with Section 90, as amended by the Bill, may want to know if there is somewhere in the legislation a definition of the meaning of the words:
"… the period allowed for compliance with an enforcement notice".
What is this period? If he wants to know that, then I am afraid that the practitioner and the layman will look in vain at Section 90, as it will appear in the Statute as amended by this Bill, to find the meaning of those words. The reason is that the only definition of those words is contained in the preceding provision, Section 89, and that deals with something quite different from stop notices; it deals with the penalties which attach to people who fail to comply with an enforcement notice, and that is the only place in the Act, if it is amended in this way, in which the definition of those words will appear.
All I am suggesting is that there should be attached at the end of Section 90 precisely the same words of definition as I have quoted and as are attached at the end of Section 29. This will involve a repetition of the same words and the words which I am asking to be repeated are those which are contained in the Amendment. The reason why I suggest that this should happen is that, if we dealt with the matter as the Bill proposes, we should deal with it differently: instead of repeating the definition at the end of new Section 90, we should attempt to do it as the Bill does in Clause 2(2). This subsection provides that,
600
"In section 89(6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (which explains references in the section to the period allowed for compliance with an enforcement notice) after the words 'this section' there shall be inserted the words 'or section 90 of this Act'."
This was a point that was raised by my honourable friend the Member for the Isle of Wight, Mr. Ross, in the other place. He received a very unsatisfactory answer. I shall not worry your Lordship by quoting it but it was really no answer at all. The point, put in its simplest terms is this: if we amend the Act as the Bill proposes, when anybody, layman or practitioner, comes to look at Section 90 to see what is its effect so far as stop notices are concerned, he will find no definition there of the words,
"The period during which an enforcement notice applies".
He will probably then go to the interpretation section of the Act hoping to find a definition there, but he will look in vain. Then, I do not know what he will do, but he may go back to the original paragraphs of the main Act which deal with the way in which the Bill is arranged. He will not find an answer there. The last thing that will occur to his mind is that he may find a definition tagged on to the end of Section 89, which is the immediately proceeding section and one which has nothing to do with the matters with which Section 90 is concerned. So this is purely a matter of the way in which we draft legislation.
It was said, in art attempted answer in the other place, that this would cause no difficulty to practitioners who were well used to this sort of thing. In my submission, that is probably completely false. It may well be that when the 1971 Act, as amended by the present Bill, gets into Halsbury's Statutes there will be a little annotation under Section 90 referring the reader back to Section 89 to find the definition. That may enable the practitioner who does not overlook the annotation to get it right, but what about the layman who has nothing but the Bill itself, with no annotation? He may spend hours vainly trying to find the definition which I am suggesting should be set out afresh. There is no objection that I know of to repeating a definition in two sections of an Act if it is necessary to make it clear what the Act is about. I beg to move.
Lord JANNER: I think I shall be making the shortest speech ever made in Committee or at any other stage in this House. As a solicitor, I want to say that I concur with all that has been said.
Lord LYELL: As a non-solicitor and a layman, may I say that I, too, find it exceedingly hard to follow the type of case outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Janner. Yet I find that in almost every Bill or Act that I come across nothing is ever made quite easy. I do not say that this is an excuse for retaining the Bill, or the Act as it will be amended, in its present form, but I do wonder whether the noble Lord or the Committee would wish to have what might be taken as needless repetition included in the Bill. I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who is a practitioner, makes, that he would normally look in the definition clause and would not find this. But the new revision to what he referred to as Clause 2(2) hut which I believe should be Clause 1(2) says:
"There shall be inserted the words 'or section 90 of this Act'."
Would the noble Lord not agree that the Amendment that Clause 1(2) will make to the Act applies to Section 90 as well as to Section 89? I take the point that the noble Lord is referring to Section 89(6) and it seems that the new subsection which the noble Lord is proposing is drafted in exactly the same terms as Section 89(6). As the noble Lord pointed out, this deals with penalties for enforcement. Clause 1(2) seems to amend Section 89(6) of the Act so as to refer not only to that section but also to Section 90.
It appears that the Amendment would insert a new subsection into the new Act and I take it that the next Amendment of the noble Lord would delete the existing subsection and so avoid making nonsense. The effect of the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord appears to be to provide completely separate and identical definitions of references to the period for compliance in both Sections 89 and 90 instead of the single definition proposed in my Bill which would appear only in Section 90.
I wonder whether the noble Lord would agree that the need for a definition in the Bill of the period for compliance with a
602
notice arises from the fact that it is subsection (4)(b) of the new Section 90 of the 1971 Act that provides for the stop notice to cease to have effect at the end of this period. I believe that that is its effect. Certainly, as the local planning authorities already have powers under Section 89(6) to extend the period, we wonder whether it is not reasonable that, during any extension of that period, the prohibition under a stop notice shall continue. We hope that that would be reasonable.
Certainly, from a layman's point of view, however, it might be convenient to have two identical explanations and definitions in adjacent sections of the Act. Perhaps I may consider this matter because I was under the impression that it might be unduly repetitive to do this, whereas perhaps one might be able to insert this definition clause where the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has suggested. I cannot promise anything, but it certainly seems to me that we should be cluttering up the Bill and hence the Act if we accepted the noble Lord's Amendment without further thought.
Baroness BIRK: In view of what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and my noble friend Lord Janner, I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is quite right to take this back for further discussion. This is really concerned with drafting and definition and is not a point of substance, and I do not believe that we should delay the Committee. On the other hand, this should not be turned down out of hand. If the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will accept the assurance, the matter can be discussed with my Department and it can probably be sorted out in that way.
Lord FOOT: I am much obliged for that intervention because it enables me to withdraw the Amendment and reconsider it for the next stage. I should like to make it perfectly plain in one sentence to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that my Amendment would make no difference whatever to the meaning of the Bill. If it were substituted for the words which are now in subsection (2), the effect would be exactly the same. I have no intention of trying to injure the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power to require information]:
6.10 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 15, at end insert ("unless the use began before the first day of January 1964").
The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I think that it would be convenient to take Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 together. This, too, is a matter which can be dealt with very briefly. Under Clause 3 of the Bill the information which the Secretary of State or a local planning authority can require an individual to give in connection with planning permissions and so on has been extended.
There was a provision under Section 284 of the 1971 Act which entitled the Secretary of State or the local planning authority to call for various information. This provision extends the area of information for which the Secretary of State or the local planning authority can ask. I am all in favour of the change contained in the Bill. I think that it is perfectly reasonable, and there is only one way in which I question its need. I should like to draw the attention of Members of the Committee to subsection (3)(d) and (f), on page 5 of the Bill, from which it will be seen that new matters have been added to those upon which the Secretary of State or the local planning authority can require information. Under paragraph (d) information can be requested as to the time when a certain use began, and under paragraph (f) information can be requested as to the time,
"… when any activities being carried out on the premises began".
That is something new, and is probably perfectly reasonable.
But under Section 87 of the 1971 Act an enforcement notice and a fortiori a stop notice can be given only where there are breaches of a planning control after the end of 1973; in other words, if you have been doing something, in breach of planning control in the period to 31st December 1963 nobody can issue an enforcement notice or a stop notice. All I seek to do in my Amendment is to make it clear that the authority which is asking for information can ask for information as to the time when an activity or use began only if it began after 1st January 1964. An inquiry about when an activity began prior to that date is perfectly pointless
604
because nobody can issue an enforcement notice to prevent it. Therefore I am seeking only to limit the matters on which an individual applicant can be asked to give information.
It could be a very difficult task if it was open to a local planning authority to ask an owner or tenant of land to go back to try to find out when a particular activity began. He may have had many predecessors in title, or the use may have begun years and years ago. What is the point of asking him to go back beyond 1964? It would be quite pointless to ask for such information. Therefore this is a purely formal Amendment, and I hope that at the very least the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will say that this is one of those Amendments that he is prepared to consider further.
Lord LYELL: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foot. He has spelled out this brace of Amendments and he declares them to be fairly formal. I would agree with him when he says that it would be extremely difficult for someone who has been carrying out an activity to remember with certainty when he began, or indeed what happened before he began the activity. But I wonder why the noble Lord chose the date of 1st January 1964. I think that he mentioned 31st December 1963, and I think that before 1968 an enforcement notice had to be served within four years of the date of carrying out unauthorised development. Would that be the reason why he has taken 1964?
Lord FOOT: No, not precisely: if the noble Lord will look at Section 87 he will find that an enforcement notice can be given in respect of breaches of planning control only when they occur after the end of 1963. That is the statutory provision to which I am referring.
Lord LYELL: Would I be right in thinking that the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Foot, describes involves a question of human memory, of remembering, or indeed of keeping records that far back?
Lord FOOT: The noble Lord has not got it quite right. If an activity began before the end of 1963, I am saying that there is no point in asking when it began,

605
or in asking an applicant to go back and try to find out when it began, because an enforcement notice to stop it cannot be issued in any case.
Lord LYELL: I take that point—at least I think I take it. But what I understand is that when a local authority wishes to obtain any information which is referred to in either paragraphs (d) or (f), regarding the time when a particular use began or the time when any activities now being carried out on the premises or land began, in practice the local authority would not ask the current user of the land to go back further than his actual use of the land, or indeed—
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: May I say something on this matter? I have had recent personal experience which does not conform with that. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is absolutely right. If the words remain as they are here, it would mean that the date when the activity was started would have to be inserted. There is protection already under which one is protected in whatever one is doing from the end of 1963. But to ask someone to set down the time when an activity was started before that date would do nothing but create some kind of complexity. If power is given for this question to be asked in relation to the period before 1st January 1964, it would open up the doubt about title and about whether people know what they are doing, and although people are protected, they would very likely be able to have that protection only after much litigation and questioning, which would be quite unnecessary.
I would strongly recommend my noble friend in this instance to make the matter tidy. The protection is there from the end of 1963. This is saying merely that, since the protection is there, one ought not to have to answer questions relating to before that date. It would he similar to the situation relating to one's driving licence, where one states "over 21". It gives one the kind of protection one wants without adding to the complexity. I have just been in the middle of this kind of matter over the past two months, and I am afraid that the situation does not work in quite the purest way that my noble friend seems to have in mind.
Lord LYELL: I, too, am in the middle, from behind, and I find the matter a little complicated and difficult. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will accept that I am getting it right. There is no point in asking about a period before 1st January 1964, and I understand that in practice this does not occur. If power existed here under paragraphs (d) and (f) I, understand that if the user of the land were able to give fairly reasonable proof that he was carrying on the activities in 1963, the local authority would be satisfied.
I take the point of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, but I was also given to understand that the question of practicalities extended to the local authority being absolutely reasonable in asking a current user of land. Furthermore, when the user is carrying out certain activities, if this user could say: "I began in 1968, and before that there was someone else; it was, I cannot remember who", or it was a certain identifiable man who might even not exist or might have moved, I understand that local authorities may have power, but I believe they are unlikely to use this power and will not use it, as the noble Lord said earlier, oppressively against the current user; that is, they would not expect something which is totally unreasonable.
Lord FOOT: I regret to say that I am afraid the noble Lord has still got it wrong. The situation is this. Up to this moment—indeed, up to this Bill reaching the Statute Book, assuming that it does—there have never been any rights in the Secretary of State or the local planning authority to require individuals to give information about how long ago a particular user began. There has not been that right. Therefore, it is no good the noble Lord saying he believes that as a matter of practice the local authorities do not ask for this information or have not asked for this information, or have asked only for information which is available to the present occupier of the premises. It is no good saying that, because it has not been the law of the land up till now.
What is being done by this Bill is that when the local planning authority or the Secretary of State is seeking information about a planning matter, then under this provision they can, for the first time,

607
go to the present occupier or to the present owner and say to him: "We want you to tell us when this user began (not your user but this user, whatever it may be)"—it may be something which has been done for generations of time—"or when this activity began; not when you started, but when anybody started". What we are saying is that there is absolutely no point in throwing that very heavy burden, as it may be, upon the individual, to search back into the last century to see when something started. It may be absolutely pointless to ask him, because you cannot issue an enforcement notice to stop it as long as it began before the 1st January 1964. So I hope that the noble Lord will say to me—he has been very good up till now—"This is another one we will talk about", because, if not, really I ought to carry this to a Division. There is nothing wrong with this at all. No injury is done to the noble Lord's Bill.
Lord LYELL: May I just say that I will consider this. The noble Lord has been kind and said that I have been very good, but the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has spoken for, I should think, three-quarters of the time that we have been discussing this Bill. I realise he has points, but I think that we must push on. I will promise to look at this point, which is very simple. I take the point. Certainly I am not going to slam the door, or even bring it to within one inch of being shut. I will leave the door open, but I should like to look at this point. I have a fairly thick bundle here containing reasons why it is believed that, if the noble Lord's Amendment were made to the Bill, it would make it impractical or might damage the Bill, but I certainly do not want to enlarge upon these reasons at this hour. I will look at this with efficacity, with speed, and, I hope, with clarity and reason.
Lord FOOT: With that assurance, which I am very glad to accept, and with the leave of the Committee, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Reverting to the discussion between the noble Lord and my noble friend, I can under-
608
stand wanting to get on—speed, time for second thoughts and all that sort of thing; I know the urgency—but in relation to the last Amendment, which has been withdrawn, I hope that when the discussions do take place the common sense of what has just been argued by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will be taken into account. One way of saving time, sometimes, is to accept the obvious, and it is a pity, perhaps, that that has not been borne in mind more in this case.
Lord LYELL: If my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls would accept everything that was obvious, then he and I, I am quite sure, would work wonders in the courts of law.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: No—not in this case.
Lord LYELL: I am pleased my noble friend makes that exception, but I take his point.
Clause 3 agreed to.
6.26 p.m.
Lord FOOT Lord FOOT moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Appeals against planning decisions
.—(1) Sections 36 and 37 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 (dealing respectively with appeals against planning decisions and appeal in default of planning decision) shall be amended as follows:—
(2) In subsection (1) of each section after the words "required under a development order" there shall be inserted the words "or pursuant to a condition imposed on the grant of a planning permission".
The noble Lord said: This is an attempt to use the opportunity of this Bill passing through Parliament to make yet a further amendment to the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Because of the late hour, I am not going to do as I originally intended; that is, to try to tell the Committee what this Amendment would do, because I believe it may be that the only objection that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, or even the Minister, has to it is that they think that the amendment which I am proposing to the Town and Country Planning Act by means of this Amendment is not strictly relevant to the matter of stop notices and information.
I cannot accept that as a reasonable argument at all. I believe that if we came

609
to argue the merits of this matter it would be universally agreed that something has been omitted from the planning laws for very many years which ought to be included; that is to say, to put it in the briefest terms, that there ought to be a right of appeal. If the planning authority, in considering a planning application, imposes a condition which the applicant finds unacceptable, then in certain cases—and I will content myself with saying that—as a matter of law there is no appeal against some of the conditions which can be imposed. It is a very odd thing that it should be so, and all I want to do is to amend the law in order to remedy that situation. When I first heard it said that it was thought inappropriate to include this in the Bill, I thought there was some substance in that; but on reflection it seemed to be an extraordinarily odd thing that, when you have a Bill going through this House called the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Bill, the whole object of which is to amend the 1971 Act in various respects, it should be called out of order or inappropriate for me to move an amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
It seems a little illogical that we should not be allowed to do that; and if that is the attitude which is eventually taken to this proposal, if it turns out that there is no controversy about what is proposed here in substance and if everybody is agreed that this is something which ought to be done, then, if it is not accepted now, at the next stage of the Bill I shall certainly carry it to a Division. Because if we do not put this error right now, it may be many years before we have the opportunity to correct what has for a long time been an omission from the planning laws. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: I was grateful to the noble Lord for being very brief and succinct in moving this Amendment. Indeed, I understood that his Amendment was outside what I may call the law of relevance to this Bill. I had in mind the cry of many of the characters that I remember reading about in my schoolboy comics, "Why pick on me, on this Bill?" I do not know whether it is usual when one has a small Bill which is limited in scope; namely, trying to remedy certain defects in the planning laws in one limited aspect. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Foot,
610
has said, that it may be a certain amount of time before one will get another opportunity to alter or amend certain other and, I think he would agree, different defects from those that this Bill seeks to remedy. If that opportunity was taken now, I think that this Bill would or could become unwieldy and inaccurate.
I am not a lawyer. I think that probably the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and I could have an argument as to what would be the effect on this Bill and whether the Bill should be altered so far as it affects the 1971 Act. Certainly, in studying the noble Lord's Amendment, the impression I have is that it is not strictly, or, indeed, very closely, linked to the purposes of the Bill before us. I do not know the usual practice in this House with regard to Bills of this kind which are of limited application and which are designed to be so.
Many things can happen in the course of the Bill's passage through this House. We can refine this Bill but I wonder whether it is not taking a large hammer—I was about to say a sledge hammer—to crack the small nut of these stop notice problems and to spread its impact over to appeals against planning decisions. That is the rubric of the noble Lord's new clause. I accept and applaud his willingness to use this opportunity of improving and benefiting the community by any changes which might be deemed necessary in the existing Act; but I would ask him to consider the point of his argument once again. He said that when he set out to consider this Bill on Second Reading or at an earlier stage he was veering towards agreement that his Amendment was beyond the relevance of the strictly limited aspects of this Bill.
Lord JANNER: I am sorry that the noble Lord has spoken in that way. This is a very relevant and extremely important matter. With the greatest respect to him, the matter that is being raised at the moment by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is something which has to be taken into consideration as soon as possible. As a member of some 30 or 40 years of the consolidating committee I am speaking now on the argument, as I understand it, against having this put into the Bill. Incidentally, the Title of the Bill admits this. This is relating to a section of the Bill which we have to consider.

611
The argument that it should be left over or inserted in some other Bill is, in my view, not a proper one. It is important to give opportunity to appeal to a person who is affected by a step which is taken subsequent to the original step. That that person should not have the right to appeal against the decision, in my view, is quite wrong. I think this is a case when we should use this opportunity—and it is an opportunity—to see to it that that position is remedied. There is a very easy way of dealing with the matter later on. There can be a consolidated Bill, of course, but one is not entitled in a consolidation committee to introduce new legislation. There are certain rights to eliminate obsolete Acts or portions of Acts and to deal with ambiguous positions. But this is not an ambiguity; it is a definite proposal. I know that it is very late and I see that my noble friend, with whom I almost invariably agree, is getting a little impatient. But it must be remembered that I did make a very short speech a few moments ago and I am not proposing to speak much longer.
I hope that the noble Lord will consider this matter, if not at this stage then at the next stage. It is important because otherwise we are giving an opportunity for conditions to be made against which there can be no appeal. In my view, that is entirely wrong. Let me say that from the point of view of the Law Society, which has the practical experience in all these matters, it is entirely wrong.
Baroness BIRK: May I intervene at this point? I should like to say that I was not getting impatient with my noble friend. I was conscious of the amount of business afterwards, of my colleagues in the House waiting to get on with the next business and that this is a very complicated matter. I think that I must point out that, if this Amendment were carried, it would entail a change of the Long Title. One cannot say that it is not an extension of this Bill; it would be an extension of this Bill. As my noble friend knows, there have been discussions with the Law Society on this point and for some time the Government have been considering legislation in this area—not by way of consolidation, where, of course, he is absolutely correct.
612
May I suggest again that this is highly complicated. Quite frankly I do not think that one can do it justice at this moment and this should be discussed again. It does involve the extension of the Long Title. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, at this stage might agree to take it back and again discuss the possibilities. If he is not convinced by our arguments that it should not be in this Bill, he has the opportunity to bring it forward at the next stage.
The Earl of KINNOULL: May I ask a question or two of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, before he either withdraws or presses his Amendment? He was so precise in his description of its purposes and it is one which certainly interests me. I only assume that what it is doing is giving a right of appeal for those who receive a conditional planning consent when normally no appeal would be allowed. I presume that that is the simple point. May I ask, first, whether there is any widespread support for this point; and, secondly, whether it is really as complicated as the noble Baroness has suggested?—because the wording of the Amendment seems very precise. Thirdly, if it is a question of adding to my noble friend's Bill—and I have great sympathy with my noble friend on this issue—is the question of simply changing the Long Title something so awful to contemplate if it is merely adding one clause which does not affect the rest of the Bill?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Is it not purely Parliamentary tactics that are involved here? I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend and particularly within the hearing of the sponsor of the Bill in another place. When you are bringing in a Bill of this kind you want to get it through. Certain agreements have been made, with certain nuances, to show the likely support you will get from both sides to get it through. Therefore you are reluctant to accept alterations for fear that you might lose the support which you have got in order to get the Bill through. Here is a change which is merited and sound and, I think, generally accepted.
The question is whether the Government are prepared to look with sympathy at this point and not to withdraw their support for getting this Bill on to the Statute Book if eventually it is accepted. If they can

613
give an indication that their sympathy is such that they will allow the Bill, as it has been more or less agreed, one gathers, to become an Act, then the extension of the Long Title does not really matter. But if the indications are that, by adding this, support would be lost and the Bill would not become an Act, then my sympathy would be for my noble friend and I would consider it unreasonable to expect him to accept the Amendment. The noble Baroness is never impatient. If she could give us an indication that if eventually they find words that can be agreed upon, it will not interfere with the acceptance of the Bill as it would stand amended, I think that that is all that is wanted at this stage.
6.40 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: I can assure the noble Lord that we want this Bill just as much as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. Our reservations concern—and here I am getting into the realm of higher legal argument, so I cannot be relied on on this—whether this clause is appropriate in this Bill; not whether the clause is wrong in substance but whether this is the legislative home in which it should be. I do not pretend, at this stage, that I could honestly argue that out to the satisfaction of the Committee, either to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, or my colleagues. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, agrees that this Amendment should be withdrawn. If he can convince those who are better informed and specialised than I am that this has a place in the Bill and will add to it, I am sure that the Government will accept it.
The arguments that I have had before me and the advice that I have had—I am being absolutely frank—is that it is not right in this Bill. This is why it is important that there should be further discussions with experts and not just across the Floor of the House. This is why I have asked the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to withdraw the Amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has also agreed.
Lord LYELL: I would accept far more the force of the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, if it were possible to convince the Committee—the non-lawyers among us, because this has, apart from my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and myself, been a legal argument—on this matter. Is the noble Lord, Lord Foot, convinced that the Amendments to
614
Sections 36 and 37 of the Act that we are discussing are relevant to the tiny Amendments that my Bill is attempting to make to Sections 89 and 90?
I accept that there could be a glimmer of hope, a possible small reason, for amending the Act in so far as another section of the Act affected Section 90. Such a movement as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, could cripple this Bill, and I believe the Bill is desirable and fairly simple. It could make the Bill far too complicated, and this would defeat the objects of it, and I hope 95 per cent. of the Bill is sound. I agree that your Lordships' House should not be bound necessarily by the procedure in another place; what we want to do in the House at all times is get the Bill right. I hope that we can do that both in Committee and on Report stage.
In your Lordships' House we can make amendments and discuss them right up to Third Reading. That is what I should like to do. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls indicated that there is a desire to put this simple Bill onto the Statute Book. All of us would be failing in our duty if we allowed the Bill to go on in a crude form and it could be conclusively shown that the Bill was unsatisfactory. I am not absolutely and entirely convinced that the Bill is totally unsatisfactory at the moment and I hope that we can take the rough edges off it now and at a later stage.
6.44 p.m.
Lord FOOT: This I hope is the end. May I say to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that I should like to tell him what the substance of my Amendments is, but I do not think that would be a very helpful course or satisfactory to the rest of the Committee at this hour of the night. I assure him that, as a matter of fact, the substance of the Amendments is entirely good and something to which nobody could take any reasonable objection. We are therefore simply involved in the question as to whether this is an appropriate vehicle for making this Amendment.
I will only ask the noble Lord, Lord Lyell this question: if you also amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 can you think of any more appropriate vehicle to do it in than a Town and

615
Country Planning (Amendment) Bill? It is not right for him to say that his Bill is limited only to the amendment of Sections 90 or 91; he is amending Section 284, the section about information, extensively. Those matters are very tenuously related, if at all. I can see no objections, as has been said, to including this Amendment in this Bill. If needs be, let us alter the heading and go ahead from there.
If I was more arrogant than I am, I would say that it has been chastening for the past hour or so to be told continually and repeatedly that what I have had to say in this Committee has failed to convince either the noble Lord who sponsors this Bill or the Government, but that if I could engage in private conversations later, I might be able to put the matter to them more coherently and persuasively than I have been able to do on the Floor of the House. I am grateful, nevertheless, to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for the "give" which they have made. I look forward to engaging in these negotiations. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport): The Question is that I report the Bill to the House without Amendment As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content" The "Contents" have it.
Baroness BIRK: On a point of Order, the Deputy Chairman of Committees said, "without Amendment". The Bill has been amended.
Lord LYELL: No, I do not think so. I think we called it a tied vote. I think that the Bill is in its present form. I think that the Deputy Chairman of Committees is correct.
Baroness BIRK: I beg your Lordships' pardon: I withdraw.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

NEW TOWNS BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker
616
that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a, and to be printed.

MINIBUS BILL
6.48 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, this is a short but important Bill, important not because it is one on which future historians will write books or make profound comments, except possibly by way of a footnote, but very important to certain groups in the population. These are particularly bodies concerned with education, with religion, with social welfare and with activities for the benefit of the community. Broadly speaking, they can be defined as voluntary and educational organisations.
These organisations use minibuses to carry their members or pupils. At present however if they should make a charge, no matter how small, for this service to cover the cost of the petrol of the minibus, its depreciation or maintenance, or even if a fund is set up to cover the costs of the minibus, the question of operating for hire or reward arises. The whole exercise comes within public service vehicle licensing under the Road Traffic Act 1960. This raises expense. It would mean that the driver would have to have a public service vehicle licence. The consequence has been that many voluntary organisations have, albeit in many cases unknowingly, been breaking the law by running their minibuses.
As a result of concern about this situation, the National Council of Social Service, the National Council for Voluntary Youth Services and the National Association of Youth Clubs, set up a Working Party in 1976 to investigate the problem and to invite evidence from other interested organisations. The result was the report called A Fair Deal For Minibuses. The report recommended in principle that minibuses operated by voluntary bodies should be exempt from the public service vehicle licensing procedure.
This Bill gives practical effect to that main proposal. I was glad to take on its sponsorship from my honourable friend, David Hunt, who piloted it so skilfully in another place. I am very glad to say that it has Government support, and I should like to acknowledge immediately the great help

617
that I personally have received from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the officials of the Department of the Environment. I hope the Bill will have a speedy passage through this House. Not only do I believe that the principle is right, but it seems to me to be a common-sense solution to a very practical problem. At a time when we need to encourage and help voluntary organisations of all kinds that are doing such valuable work in the community, it makes economic sense to allow volunteers to run these buses and to make a charge to cover the cost. At this late hour, and when there are so many other speakers, I do not intend to illustrate the principle but I feel quite confident that every speaker will know particular groups who will illustrate the need for this Bill.
I should like now to turn to what the Bill proposes. Clause 1 removes from the scope of public service vehicle licensing vehicles carrying between eight and 16 passengers, exclusive of the driver, operating for hire or reward—that is the term used for making a charge—by bodies concerned with education, religion, social welfare or other activities for the benefit of the community. I have been asked what that last category means. It is a general category, intended to cover voluntary organisations which might not be quite specifically covered by the first three categories.
Those seeking to run a minibus under this provision must get a permit from the traffic commissioners to do so, though the Secretary of State may, by regulation, designate other bodies where appropriate. For example, one suggestion is that there might be a local voluntary organisation that might be able to issue the permits. Such bodies—either the Traffic Commissioners or another designated body—would need to have regard to any directions given by the Secretary of State on issuing the permit. Such regulations would be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure.
Clause 1(5) makes it clear that those vehicles which are excluded from the public service vehicle licensing procedure are not caught by the private hire licensing legislation, and as someone who was, a short while ago, involved in the intricacies of taxis and private hire vehicles, I am delighted to feel that it in no way applies to this Bill.
618
Clause 2 is concerned entirely with the form and content of the permit and with the provisions for the revocation of the permit. The permit must specify the body to whom it is issued and the vehicles to which it relates. It must contain conditions defining the classes of passengers who may be carried, and deal with other matters that may be laid down by the Secretary of State in regulations. There are provisions in it for the variation of conditions attaching to the permit, and for its revocation by the Traffic Commissioners or the issuing body. It will remain in force until the vehicle changes hands or, where issued by a body other than the Traffic Commissioners, that body ceases to be designated. The clause makes provision, where it seems appropriate, for the permit to be issued to a named individual on behalf of the body, rather than to the body itself.
The powers of the Secretary of State to make regulations are contained in Clause 3. That clause sets out, if I may put it in this way, how the scheme of permits will work. Under Clause 1, the Traffic Commissioners, or some other designated body, have power to issue a permit. Those powers are governed by regulations which come in the form of a permit—the fees to be charged, the documents, and so on, which are required to be carried by the vehicle, the conditions to be attached to the driver and, above all, the safety conditions of the vehicle itself. That last point, of course, is one of enormous importance and needs to be carefully considered in each case. In making the regulations, the Secretary of State will consult the list of persons or bodies listed in Clause 3(3). As will be apparent, this must include local authorities and other bodies which are interested in the permits that might be issued. Clause 4 is quite straightforward and is concerned entirely with interpretation.
My Lords, I am most gratified that this Bill should have attracted the interest of so many speakers this evening. There are far more than I expected, but I attribute that to the great interest of your Lordships in voluntary organisation, in church groups and in the welfare of the aged, the handicapped and many other bodies who will be able to make use of the provisions of the Bill. In an ideal world, of course, I would wish that it went further, but even with its limited application I believe it will be of enormous

619
value to great numbers of people. It is something which we can do to serve a practical purpose at the time of economic stringency.
I believe, therefore, is is something which will be welcomed in all parts of the House and I hope very much that it will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House and on to the Statute Book. We are living in a somewhat uncertain world and it would be a pity if, for any reason, there was any delay so that it had to go back to another place. I hope, because the principle will be accepted by everybody, that we shall be able to carry it as it is. I do not want to speak at any length tonight; first, because of the hour and, secondly, because I want to give an opportunity to others to comment on the Bill. I do commend it to your Lordships, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Bareness Young.)
6.58 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I outline very briefly the Government's attitude to the Bill we are considering today. I want to say right at the beginning that the Government are concerned about the problems facing voluntary bodies, churches and schools in the provision of transport for their welfare and educational purposes. The noble Baroness, in introducing the Bill, has explained these fully and it would be superfluous for me to add to what she has said. I think your Lordships will all agree that here we have a particular and pressing problem which can and should be dealt with by separate legislation, without in any way prejudging the wider issues of bus licensing law generally.
Some of your Lordships may recall the Passenger Vehicles (Experimental Areas) Bill which was recently considered by your Lordships' House, and be wondering how it fits in with the Bill we are discussing today. The two Bills deal with quite different aspects of the same complex of issues; there is no conflict between them. The Minibus Bill, as I have said, deals with a particular issue, and is not concerned with bus licensing as a whole.
620
The Government are tackling the broader problem of licensing pragmatically, aided by the findings from a programme of experiments which, with the help of the Experimental Areas Bill, will throw further light on the case for change in the licensing system, particularly with regard to rural areas.
I should now like to make a few brief comments on some particular aspects of the Bill. We would all agree that it is important that the Bill should protect the legitimate interests of commercial operators, particularly by preventing abuse by bogus organisations and the permit system will deal with this point. It is a valuable protection to have the Traffic Commissioners, with all their expertise in passenger transport, as the anchor point for the issue of permits to a variety of local bodies, among whom there is always the possibility of a bogus organisation appearing. With clearly identifiable national bodies the same problem does not arise, and it is clearly a good idea that the Secretary of State should be empowered to designate this kind of major body to issue permits, subject to safeguards, to their branch and affiliated organisations.
I should like to turn now to the subject of safety, because I know this will be of particular concern to many of your Lordships. I will look, first, at the safety of the vehicles on the road. I know that there has been some feeling, during the sponsors' consultations on the Bill, that all vehicles coming within scope should be subject to a special test laid down therein. In my view, this would be unnecessary. Safety on the road concerns all minibuses, not just those coming under the Bill, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has wide powers under the Road Traffic Act 1972 to make regulations concerning the testing and checking of different classes of vehicles. Safety requirements are, in fact, becoming more stringent for minibuses.
From 1st January this year all passenger vehicles licensed as private with 13 or more passenger seats have been required to take the new extended MOT test at a specially authorised testing station, which has the proper facilities for dealing with vehicles of this size: this means, in the great majority of cases, taking the test at

621
a Government testing station. Without a valid test certificate these vehicles cannot, of course, get a vehicle excise licence and hence cannot legally be used on the road. This requirement could be extended to all minibuses coming under the Bill. Furthermore, under EEC roadworthiness provisions, an annual test will in due course be required once a vehicle is a year old. All these matters raise issues of manpower and resources; we shall strive to achieve the optimum benefit to safety within the applicable constraints.
So far as drivers are concerned, I agree that no special test for them should be necessary. I believe that the organisations covered by the Bill are, as a group, responsible people who take very great care over whom they allow to operate their minibuses. The vehicles covered by the Bill are essentially similar in handling characteristics to large family cars, and thus nothing more than the level of skill for the ordinary car licence seems to be called for. However, if hard evidence, or experience, suggests that a special test is after all desirable, there is in the Bill the provision that ensures my right honourable friend the Secretary of State can deal with the matter quickly, subject to the control of Parliament.
I should like to make one final point. The Bill can do nothing about EEC requirements. They have, I know, caused some concern, but they are entirely a matter for the Community. The Government are pressing for certain exemptions with private minibuses in mind, Negotiations are still continuing and the maximum size of such vehicles is still in considerable doubt. I should like, on behalf of the Government, to commend this Bill, sponsored so ably by the noble Baroness, to your Lordships' House and hope, for the sake of the many organisations which would benefit from its provisions, that it has the quickest possible passage to Royal Assent.
7.3 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like very briefly to welcome this Bill, the purpose of which has been so very clearly explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, amplified by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. When the Road Traffic Act 1930 was passed, its Promoters could scarcely have foreseen the development of
622
the minibus as we know it today, or the decline in public transport in rural areas which has taken place in recent years. We may well ask whether that Act, on which our present legislation is based, constitutes a satisfactory framework for road traffic legislation generally. But this is not the occasion to attempt to answer that question, though the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has reminded us that modified licensing arrangements are to be tried out in experimental areas.
But we have had described to us how voluntary organisations—churches, schools, community groups, youth groups and organisations of that kind—are using the minibus for purposes of great social value to the community, and in this connection we have to bear in mind that in rural areas 30 per cent. of households are without cars. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, explained, these organisations cannot always meet costs out of their normal funds. They have, in many cases, to charge to cover their costs and, as she explained, when they do so they come up against the licensing laws.
In considering the licensing laws, we have to consider not only the cost of the licences, but the cost of the alterations required to a vehicle to comply with the licensing requirements and the fact that that cost is often greater than the value of the vehicle itself. The problem for the organisations has been to run a vehicle on an economic basis and remain within the law. Therefore, I support the proposal in the Bill for the Traffic Commissioners to be given power to issue permits exempting these organisations from the licensing procedure, and also the proposal to give similar powers to certain national organisations to be designated by the Minister.
The Bill insists that those receiving permits should in no way engage in a commercial activity, and that is right. But what is the effect, I wonder, of the phrase in Clause 1(1)(b), which reads as follows:
"… nor incidentally to an activity which is itself carried on with a view to profit".
I wonder whether that might be rather restricting. If, for example, the organisers of a church garden fête being held to make a profit for church funds collected by means of a minibus, a party from an

623
old people's home, would that journey be incidental to an activity carried on with a view to profit?
It is clear that safety and competence of the driver are two matters the importance of which cannot be over-emphasised, and I listened with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, had to say about this. In the report A Fair Deal for Minibuses, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred—the report which paved the way for this Bill—comprehensive proposals were put forward for dealing with the fitness of the vehicle and the proficiency of the driver. It is the view of the Government that no special provisions are necessary, though I should have preferred to see those provisions contained in the regulations which are to be made under the Bill to deal with these matters. To conclude, I believe that there is a genuine need for this Bill and I hope that the House will give it a Second Reading.
7.7 p.m.
Lord ALLEN of ABBEYDALE: My Lords, I should like briefly to add to the welcome to this Bill, which I am very glad to know has been forthcoming both from the Government and from the Liberal Front Bench. It is a Bill which serves both to clarify the law and also to relax its requirements in relation to some very deserving activities—with due regard to safety, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, has explained.
I suppose that I ought to declare an interest of a kind, although certainly not a financial one, in that I have only just ceased to be chairman of the National Council of Social Service, a body which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, explained, played a substantial part in getting this proposal launched. The National Council, with its wide membership, was well placed to take delivery of the growing concern which was being expressed by voluntary bodies all over the country about the fact that their use of minibuses might be illegal, and in association with one of its associated bodies and one of its members, as named by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, a Working Party was set up in March of last year to go into the problem, as has been explained.
624
But it is just worth recording that this Working Party did its work rather more quickly than some I know about. It put in its report last November, by a happy coincidence on the day of the ballot for Private Members' Bills in another place. As the noble Baroness has explained, the subject was taken up by Mr. David Hunt. The Department of Transport gave every help, and here we are, only some 15 months after the operation started, with a Bill which seems to me to meet the problem in a fairly satisfactory way, and with the added benefit of a simple Title compared with the much longer one conferred on the Bill at birth.
The case for the Bill has been very clearly put, but I should like to emphasise the point that the wide range of use covered by the Bill provides some illustration of the work which voluntary bodies are doing for the community, despite the financial problems they are facing —work which is not always appreciated so widely as it deserves. In some areas, for example, those who take the elderly or disabled by minibus to do, say, their shopping may be giving them their only journey outside their own homes. Youth groups going on educational visits, or members being taken to Church, are just two examples, drawn out of many, of services which simply could not be replaced if the voluntary bodies gave up. The local education authorities and the local social service departments would clearly not have either the money or the resources, or possibly the powers, to step into their place. I should also like to emphasise the point which has been made, that all of these voluntary organisations provide these services just at cost. They do not seek to make a profit; they aim only to meet their operating expenses.
Whether the EEC requirements, to which the noble Baroness referred, are more than a cloud on a distant horizon I do not know, but, be that as it may, there seems to me to be a clear and urgent need for the Bill. I share the hope that it can be passed speedily into law and that the necessary administrative arrangements can then be completed as soon as possible to enable it to be brought into force at an early date. My Lords, may I end by saying that the brevity of my remarks is in inverse proportion to the warmth of my welcome for the Bill.
7.12 p.m.
Baroness BERKELEY: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lady Young and to thank her for introducing this Minibus Bill, for it will fill a much needed gap in rural life and will be of enormous help to the various organisations mentioned in it. The Bill will help these organisations to keep going and to expand their activities.
I am not quite clear, however, about the type of person who is to own and run a minibus. Will ownership be confined entirely to these voluntary organisations, or may the villagers join together to buy a bus by subscription and have it run by the parish or district council? It seems to me that the minibus ought to be used for other than voluntary organisation purposes and that the Bill restricts its use. Will its use include taking the elderly shopping and collecting their pensions? Many elderly people now need transport to the larger centres, because in many cases the village post office has come to an end and, alas! the village store is beginning to vanish, too. The elderly need help and assistance to go further afield.
I feel that the Bill needs a broader base so as to give more scope for the use of the minibus. I believe that where there is no other bus service it should be possible for the minibus to be hired for any reasonable purpose, either privately or by different organisations. If one organisation in a village possesses a minibus, will another organisation be allowed to hire or borrow it? Presumably the village would not need a fleet of minibuses. One minibus should be capable of serving the different organisations, especially to enable people to do the more necessary jobs, such as shopping. Can the Bill be amended to achieve this purpose? If it cannot be amended, half a loaf is nevertheless better than no bread, so I wish to lend my support to the Bill.
7.14 p.m.
The LORD BISHOP of ROCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to support the Bill which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has presented so cogently to your Lordships' House. I ought to begin by declaring an interest, or even a lack of interest. Those of us who now have to describe ourselves as two metres or more tall find any vehicle which describes itself
626
as "mini" as something to be avoided like the plague. But I do not speak for myself; I speak on behalf of the members of all the Churches and for Church youth organisations of all denominations who, without any deliberate intention of doing so, have found themselves running very near to the wind, so far as the law is concerned, by organising transport on a regular basis for their members.
Many of your Lordships will know that in many places the decline of public transport, particularly but not only on Sundays, is now such that movement is severely restricted for those who are without their own car. There is an increasing need, therefore, for arrangements to be made whereby members of congregations can be conveyed to and from their place of worship and to enable meetings of elderly people, mothers with children and youth groups to take place.
The rules laid down for public service vehicles do not seem to be very apt where a small vehicle is not providing a public service for all comers but is, for example, taking the elderly and handicapped to social occasions, school and youth groups on expeditions and people to church who live too far away to walk. This question of distance is becoming quite acute in some areas, because the overheads involved in running organisations or in keeping buildings open, perhaps only for a few hours a week, have resulted in the closing down of certain facilities and, therefore, in the necessity for gathering people together over a much wider area. This is not all loss, by any means, for often a much more worthwhile occasion is able to take place.
The question of payment for transport in a minibus to or from a hall or church presents a number of anomalies. If the cost of the transport is met from general church funds, in the same way as other church expenses such as heating, lighting or the repair of the fabric, and if there is no connection between the contributions which the congregations make towards these general expenses and the transport which is made available, I believe that then it can probably be said that the vehicle is not carrying passengers for hire or reward. I understand, however, that the present law is breached not only where passengers pay directly for their transport, which is the simplest and easiest thing for

627
them always to do, but even when they make increased contributions to church funds in consideration of transport being made available.
This Bill will clearly facilitate what is, I believe, a very valuable form of community service to many lonely, aged and needy people as well as provide a considerable easing of many consciences, if it can become law, with the very important safeguards to which reference has already been made. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will support the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and give the Bill a Second Reading and speed it on its way.
7.19 p.m.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, as your Lordships are probably aware, have initiated debates on rural transport and have continually spoken on rural transport. In principle, therefore, I welcome this Bill. I have, however, a rather suspicious mind, and when I read it I find myself in some doubt as to whether it is going to do what it is hoped that it will do. To start with, I dislike, as I think a number of your Lordships do, the awful bureaucratic hand which comes into the running of any transport Bill, and this Bill appears to have more bureaucrats than fleas on a hedgehog.
We start off with the Traffic Commissioners. I am a little doubtful about Traffic Commissioners; I am not over keen on the way they organise their transport, and I have great doubt as to whether Traffic Commissioners as such are the people to judge who is a body to run a minibus for the benefit of the community. Who is going to judge what bodies shall run transport for the benefit of the community? The Church obviously is one. I can think of hundreds, including the Boy Scouts and other boys' associations, but ultimately when we come to this we shall set some very peculiar people who might creep in. Are we to be in a position where (shall we say?) football supporters who go round creating hell everywhere, can get themselves organised with a minibus to go to football matches?
I know we should say that this is linked incidentally to an activity which is carried on with a view to profit, but I am with the noble Lord, Lord Banks: I should like to see, out in the country, pensioners as a
628
group enabled to have these minibuses to help their activities. Some of these rural areas have been so chopped off by the Traffic Commissioners from their bus routes that in a large number of cases they are practically paralysed from movement, as I think the right reverend Prelate said. These pensioners want movement; it is very good for them to get out. But if we say incidentally that an activity that is carried on with a view to profit must not be pursued, then you cannot even take your minibus to catch a bus on the main road which the Traffic Commissioners might want you to do instead of taking the bus to a market—which probably would be illegal because that is an activity for profit. Could they take a bus to catch a train? I do not know, but I should like it carefully considered to see whether this is not a fundamental weakness in the Bill.
Another point which has occurred to me concerns schools. In my area there is great alarm and distress about the extra charge on children, and that children have to walk down a very narrow road to their school. In principle, I should be most interested to know whether parent-teacher associations could organise a school bus to take these children to their school. It would keep them off the narrow roads such as that which is now used by a 35-seater bus, which allows, I think, three feet on either side of the road for those children who have to walk to school. If parent-teacher associations could do this, I think it would be very encouraging and I know it would be a great help for the children.
I have looked through this Bill and I regret to say that I still come back to the question of who is to say what group will run a bus service for the benefit of the community. Who is to say what is for the benefit of the community? Probably the Secretary of State might be able to say, but I still come back to the fact that in my view Traffic Commissioners are not the people to say what is for the benefit of the community. The Traffic Commissioners are there to see that the bus service they operate is run efficiently because they are the people who have been cutting the bus services all the way through. If we cannot link these things with a body operating for profit, then this Bill will not be very helpful.
I am also not very keen on the fact that apparently the Traffic Commissioners

629
can revoke a permit which they have granted, and I cannot see that there is in any way an appeal against any revocation they may make, however worthy the people who are running these services. So far as the Traffic Commissioners are concerned, I should like there to be some form of appeal against a decision; some words inserted to ensure that someone can appeal to the Secretary of State. I think it would be a very great advantage and it would give people more confidence in this Bill.
If properly organised and operated, and with the words in this Bill carefully scrutinised, I think we could have a very good Bill; but I should hate to see this Bill go through and be wrecked because the wording is such that people who should not operate these bus services can do so because they can claim that they are doing something for the benefit of the community. With those words I should like to assure my noble friend Lady Young that I shall have no hesitation in helping her to pass this Bill even though I may have doubts about it.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I welcome this Bill wholeheartedly, because I feel that it is for the welfare of the community in the various villages and hamlets, which as we all know are becoming more and more depopulated by the local country community. The villages and hamlets are still populated, but in many cases they are now populated by people who treat the villages as country cottages, who come in by car for the weekends and do not take any part in village life. As one who was born and brought up where the nearest shop was five miles away, I feel that I have a little knowledge of this.
I feel that this Bill might well be the salvation and in some cases the resuscitation of village life, because it will mean that people will stay and live in the villages; they will be able to go out frequently as and when required. From reading the Bill, it seems to me—and I am afraid perhaps I have not gone into it quite as deeply as the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford—that organisations such as the parish council, the women's institute and other organisations within the village will be able to get together and not only buy a
630
bus but will also be able to use that bus for any and every pursuit that they wish. For instance, there is a village near my old home where they have one bus a week. The doctor comes on Wednesday to do a surgery but the bus comes on Tuesday. But now if the villagers are able to have their own bus they will be able to organise that the bus comes on Thursdays, perhaps on Mondays and perhaps on Saturdays, thereby helping all the villagers.
We all know the railways have been closed, far too many of them. The bus services have also been curtailed. One realises the reasons for this, One is, of course, that the big bus companies can in no way, and should not perhaps be able to, know the needs of the individual villagers. I think that this is what we have to get back to; that is, the needs not only of the elderly, but of those who perhaps are disabled or those who have no transport at all. One must realise that, in the depths of the Cotswolds, Wales, Cornwall, in places that are a long way from towns, a great number of people have been getting older and have not been able to get out. They have not been able to get to a shop; the only shop has been perhaps one brought round on a lorry or van. Unless they are able to be taken out by local relatives, or perhaps the Churches, they have been completely incarcerated for many years in these villages. I was so sorry that a clause in the Road Traffic Bill enabling minibuses to be started was deleted with the change of Government in 1974.
I hope this Bill is not too late to save the rural communities. I personally do not think it is. I certainly wish it very well. I should also like to say briefly that these buses—to my certain knowledge, having driven them—are very easy to drive. It certainly takes no particular ability to drive these minibuses. I hope that this Bill has a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
7.32 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I must apologise that I did not put my name down to speak because I did not think it really necessary. It is probably not really necessary for me to speak. I should like, if it is not presumptuous, to congratulate my noble friend Lady

631
Young on the very succinct way in which she introduced this very worthy and useful little Bill. At the same time I should like once again, if it is necessary—I am sure it is not—gently to draw her attention to the remarks of my noble friend Lady Berkeley and the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, and also the wise words of Lord de Clifford on the Traffic Commissioners. I have drawn attention once or twice to this point, as the noble Baroness is aware. I am aware that the Government are doing something about the problem of rural transport, and I think it would be churlish of us not to be grateful for what they are doing to help with this little Bill. We are all waiting for bigger things soon. With that I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Young again on getting this little Bill so speedily before your Lordships' House.
7.34 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate this evening and have unanimously supported this Bill. I realise that one should not on these occasions begin with an apology, but I did realise afterwards that I referred to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and her advisers from the Department of the Environment when I should have said Transport. I can only attribute this to being quite overcome by having such absolutely splendid help on a piece of legislation. I was thinking so much about the help I forgot the name of the place where it came from. I would not wish any discourtesy to the Department she represents. I would like to thank the noble Baroness for her speech and for filling in the background to these technical points so well.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Banks. He did ask about a particular point. He asked what is meant in Clause 1(1)(b) in which those activities which are excluded from the Bill are defined; that is, the vehicle is not being used for carrying members of the public at large,
"nor with a view to profit nor incidentally to an activity which is itself carried on with a view to profit".
He asked me the meaning of that last statement. It is intended to exclude nonprofit making bodies set up by commercial
632
concerns; that is, if a concern is a profit-making body it cannot have some kind of non-profit making body running minibuses in connection with its business. That is what it is intended to mean.
I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, for his remarks. We are most grateful for his speaking on behalf of the National Council of Social Service. I believe it will be very important that voluntary organisations shall know that this Bill is on the Statute Book, and publicity will be very important in getting it known. It is very reassuring to know that the noble Lord has spoken in this debate and has the Bill at heart, and can use his influence in this regard.
My noble friend Lady Berkeley, whom I was very glad to hear speaking this evening, asked me whether or not it would be possible for more than one organisation to be authorised to use a minibus under this Bill, and the answer is yes. Unfortunately, I am bound to tell her that, much as I would like to extend the provisions of this Bill to all the activities she enumerated to help people in country areas, these are in fact outside the provisions of the Bill. It applies only to those organisations named in Clause 1.
I must also regretfully say this to my noble friend Lady Macleod. She will, of course, be very glad to know that it will apply to the disabled and voluntary organisations to do with the disabled. It cannot just be run by a parish council as part of their public transport service. Much as I should like to see extensions, this is the way the Bill will work. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who said it is better to get something on the Statute Book than!to seek perfection. As a practical politician, I always believe that half a loaf, or even three-quarters as I think we might claim, is better than no bread at all. This Bill does have a fairly restrictive use, but nevertheless I think it will be valuable. I am, of course, very glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester spoke. Of course, in regard to the particular groups of people to whom he referred, people going to church, running a minibus, particularly to collect the elderly in rural areas, would be very helpful indeed; and this will be covered by the provisions of the Bill.

633
My noble friend Lord de Clifford is not, I think, quite as against the Bill as he would lead us to believe; indeed he accepted it in principle. I think when he complains about it he is probably finding it as difficult as I do to read the Bill. I have always regretted that when I was an undergraduate I did not read law because it certainly would have made my life much easier. When one comes to study the Bill, which has quite a straightforward purpose, it is much more complicated than it looks at first sight, and it seems the more one looks at it the more complicated it becomes. Nevertheless, as I have been assured by those responsible and knowledgeable about these matters, the Bill is in order and confirmed by the officials of the Department of Transport (so that I can get that in correctly); I think we must accept that it must remain as it is, because any change will cause confusion and make it incorrect. We would not wish something to go on the Statute Book which is not in order.
On the point about who will judge whether or not someone is to have a permit, an organisation will apply to the Traffic Commissioners, who will have to take into account, within the regulations laid down by the Secretary of State, whether the vehicle comes up to standard, whether the organisation is correct. I see no reason to suppose that it will be a very complicated procedure, because I believe that, once the Bill goes on the Statute Book, everyone will want to see that it works correctly. If a permit is revoked, it will clearly be because the organisation or the vehicle or the driver does not meet one of the requirements in the Bill. I think to include a statutory right of appeal would be taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut; perhaps "nut" is the right word in connection with a minibus.
If the minibus itself does not come up to the correct safety requirements, clearly once the safety requirements were met the permit could be given again. But there must be a safeguard to make sure that the body applying for the permit is one that is properly constituted and that the driver and the vehicle meet the necessary requirements. I hope that I have answered all the points that have been raised. Once again, may I say how grateful I am to noble Lords for coming here this evening and supporting the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

IMPORT OF LIVE FISH (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
7.40 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Viscount Thurso.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Power to limit the import etc. of fish and fish eggs]:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, leave out ("to the wild").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, as I promised during Committee, Amendment No. 1 is moved following the withdrawal of a similar Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. This Amendment removes the words to the wild ", recognising them as being tautological, possibly restrictive and perhaps liable to create difficulties in connection with enforcement. I should point out that Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 are drafting Amendments which are consequential upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, for having tabled the same Amendment on Report after consideration during the interval since the Committee stage of the argument that I had advanced. At Committee stage, my Amendment was a probing one, but as we went into it, it appeared that there was some substance in it. It is gratifying to find now that the Bill is being altered accordingly. My object was to help to reduce the area of possible disputes in the interpretation of the Bill when it has been enacted. I am glad if I have been able to make any contribution to that end.
I foresee that there may be contention when the Bill is enacted. I recall, as I am sure the noble Viscount does, the question of the import of Charolais cattle into this country, which is somewhat similar to the

635
proposals for bringing coho salmon in now. A few farmers wanted to obtain permission for Charolais cattle to come in, and when eventually permission was given they did very well. But there were others who were very strongly opposed, most of the reasons being connected with health and possible damage to breeds that were already in this country.
I can foresee similar controversies over fish. Only recently there has been a report confirming that the coho salmon is more suitable for fish farming than our indigenous salmon. We shall be discussing that report from Dr. Purdom of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food later this evening when we discuss the law on fish farming. I should not he surprised if at some time in the future very strong and sincere feelings are aroused in the course of these arguments, especially where there is apprehension about possible health hazards concerning the imports of fish which are not indigenous to this country. Therefore, I believe that anything we can do to help clarify the legislation that passes through may reduce the disputes which could arise in the future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill)The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill) moved manuscript Amendment No. 1 A:
Page 2, line 4, leave out ("Minister for the Civil Service") and insert ("Treasury".)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. The Treasury is the appropriate Department to be consulted on the fixing of licence fees such as this. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this might be the moment for me to raise again the matter that came up at Committee stage and on which we agreed that we would wait until a later stage to hear the Government's considered answer. This is on the question as to whether the Government have said that they will give financial support for the Bill. In Committee, a new clause on compensation was added to the Bill. That immediately meant that the Government were being committed to providing money when compensation would be required.
A Bill which is sponsored by a private Peer and then later has to be sponsored by a private Member in another place requires
636
a Money Resolution when it reaches the other place, where money matters are dealt with. Many a Private Member's Bill has fallen in another place because the Government were not prepared to produce the Money Resolution and in that way back the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was able to give us a general undertaking at the Committee stage when this was raised, but we agreed to raise it again later, and Report stage is the appropriate time to ask whether he can tell us more about this. Unless the Government are prepared to underwrite the compensation clause, it would almost be better to take that clause out, because there is no chance of the Bill being passed in another place in that form.
I am not asking the Minister to tell us about the availability of time in another place or anything like that; or whether the Bill is likely to go through without debate. I am simply asking whether, in fact, the Treasury is undertaking to give whatever financial support might be required by the compensation clause and will therefore be producing a Money Resolution when the Bill reaches another place.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has posed a direct question to me following his earlier question in Committee. I indicated at an earlier stage that there was general Government support for the Bill, but I also indicated then—as I mention now—that I could not say how far the Bill will proceed in another place. But if the Government will the means, I presume that they will will the ends. I can give the general assurance that it is reasonable to assume that the Government will give practical support to the Bill at the effective time.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for introducing this Amendment, not only because it has given us an opportunity to raise the other question which was worrying the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, but also because it corrects a defect in the Bill for me, and I am grateful to him for having observed that defect and thereby having helped me to put it right.

637
I am happy to let my Bill go forward at this stage in the hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has submitted, that the Government will will the means if they will the ends. Personally, I do not take the same view as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, about the Bill. This is not a Bill aimed solely at coho salmon. It was sparked off by the discussion, controversy and so forth arising out of an import of coho salmon eggs, but it is intended to fill a gap in the law and to give powers to the Secretary of State which any Secretary of State in any circumstances ought to have in the general interest. His decision on whether or not to use the powers contained in the Bill will always, of course, remain his. I would certainly support Lord Kirkhill's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.50 p.m.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, at end insert ("and the Secretary of State may revoke or vary any such licence.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment confers power on the Secretary of State to revoke or vary a licence once granted. It will enable the Secretary of State to make changes, if required, in accordance with changing circumstances. Your Lordships may remember that in Committee I did not move a similar Amendment although I explained that I was going to bring forward an Amendment such as this at this stage of discussion of the Bill. This was because there were flaws in the Amendment which I had hoped to move at Committee. hope that your Lordships will find that this particular Amendment is more apt and will achieve the original purpose better. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 10, at end insert ("but does not include a dwelling-house.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment again follows upon a point which was drawn to our attention
638
by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. He asked at the Committee stage whether perhaps the powers were a bit restrictive. I promised at that stage to look at the powers which we were hoping to confer for inspection, and so forth, in the Bill. Having this in mind, and having also in mind the scale and nature of the operations involved in keeping fish eggs, or more probably fish, I consider that although it would be necessary to ensure powers of entry into buildings such as hatcheries, fish farm sheds, and so forth, there is no need to empower officers to enter private dwelling-houses. This Amendment, therefore, is designed to exclude dwelling-houses from the scope of the powers of entry and inspection given by Clause 3, and will I hope ensure that no unnecessary intrusion upon the privacy of the individual is permitted by the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, again I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having responded to a point which I made at the Committee stage. What I said at that time was that as Parliamentarians I was sure that all of us did not want to bring in any more powers of snooping than were absolutely necessary. At the same time I recognise that if the Bill is to be operational then it would need to have some powers of inspection. The noble Viscount has, as a result, decided that private dwellings can now be excluded. I am sure that this is right. Of course there could be some unscrupulous person who could physically keep inside in some aquarium some new imported fish without a licence instead of goldfish, or angel fish, and then later release them, but I think this is the kind of risk we can reasonably take. Therefore, I thank the noble Viscount for his Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Offences etc.]:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("to the wild").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment consequent upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 5:
Line 2, leave out ("to the wild").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this also is a drafting Amendment, similarly consequent upon Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VALUATION AND RATING (EXEMPTED CLASSES) (SCOTLAND) ORDER 1977
7.56 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL Lord KIRKHILL rose to move, That the draft Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 24th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, Section 1 of the Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Act 1976 confers on the Secretary of State the power to prescribe that certain types of lands and heritages which lie wholly or partly on, over, or under the bed of the sea shall not be entered in the valuation roll. As I explained in your Lordships' House during the Second Reading of the Bill on 27th July 1976, the Government intended to use this power to exempt from local rates the Forth and Tay road bridges and offshore oilfields and installations. The lands and heritages to which this order applies are set out in the Schedule. Article 3 describes the extent of the exemption in each case, and Article 2 provides definitions of various terms.
Part I of the Schedule specifics for exemption from valuation any public road toll bridge lying wholly or partly over the bed of the sea. Article 2 in subsection (2) defines such a bridge as one occupied by a local authority, joint board, or joint committee of local authorities together with associated property other than a refreshment room or a dwelling-house which it would be inappropriate to exempt from valuation.
There are two public road toll bridges in Scotland within this definition; the Forth road bridge and the Tay road bridge. Until 1975 rating exemptions were afforded to these bridges by local Acts but these were withdrawn by the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. Since 1975 parts of both bridges have been entered on
640
valuation rolls but no rates have yet been paid because the assessments are still under appeal.
Since repeal of the original exemption was inadvertent, and since the only means of meeting a rate burden on these public toll bridges would be to make a substantial increase in the tolls, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State proposes to restore the exemption by this order. The Erskine bridge is a similar structure but it is not affected by the order because it is Crown property and so already exempt from rates. Ex-gratia payments in lieu of rates on Crown property are normally made on the same basis as similar subjects, so that the exemption of the Forth and Tay road bridges would provide a continuing basis for the present practice under which no ex-gratia payment is made in respect of Erskine bridge.
Part II of the Schedule specifies for exemption under Article 3 any licensed area, any offshore installation, and any pipeline so far as it lies seaward of the low water mark of ordinary spring tides. Article 2 contains the relevant definitions. A primary reason for this proposed exemption is that the seaward limits of local authorities are not defined by Statute. Consequently, assessments have been made on the Forties, Auk, and Argyll oilfields lying many miles offshore. The oil companies have challenged these assessments and special cases have been brought before the Court of Session on the question of jurisdiction. It is however the Government's policy that taxation on offshore petroleum exploitation should accrue nationally and not locally. The order would ensure that the offshore subjects to which it refers are not burdened with rates in addition to royalties and national taxes, such as petroleum revenue tax.
The areas to be exempt are United Kingdom licensed areas; the offshore installations to be exempt are in-licensed areas; and the pipelines to be exempt are for the purpose of transporting petroleum won from a licensed area. An offshore installation does not include structures long held to be subject to rates, such as a harbour, pier, or jetty, nor any installation for handling petroleum already brought to land.
Buoys at or near the wellhead would qualify for exemption, but a buoy used for

641
transporting oil already brought to land would not. The basic criterion affecting pipelines is that they cease to qualify when they transport petroleum beyond what may he described as the first substantial landfall or, in terms of the order, when the petroleum which it carries has already been brought to the mainland of Scotland or has been subject to storage, refinement or other treatment on land.
I should draw attention to Article 3(3), which is to the effect that relevant entries already in the valuation roll are to be deleted from 16th May 1975 or the date of entry, whichever is later. The Act provides for such retrospection where an order is made within nine months of the passing of the Act, so that the particular cases which I have prescribed may be dealt with. The Act also requires my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consult local authorities and relevant associations and persons before making an order of this kind. I therefore wish to acknowledge the assistance and advice which the Government have received from the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, the Scottish Assessors' Association, the United Kingdom Offshore Operators' Association as well as the local authorities and other bodies primarily concerned. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 24th May, be approved.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
8.2 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this is the first of the orders under the 1976 Act, which we considered as a Bill during the course of last year, and that Act was to govern rating beyond the low water mark in Scotland. This first order contains very much what we were given to expect from our discussions last year; that is to say, it deals with the Forth and Tay road bridges and subjects connected with the offshore oil industry. It is a matter of some interest that the Government have not attempted to define an oilfield; oilfields have already been assessed by assessors in two of the regional councils, but the Government are taking any licensed area as the subject to be exempted from rating, and I think that is sensible. When we have had petroleum Bills before
642
this House and have asked for a definition of a commercial oilfield the Government have made it clear that it is exceedingly difficult to define; so any licensed area—that is early days so far as the oil industry is concerned—is exempted from rating.
The effect of this order, as I see it, is the Government making it absolutely clear—I do not think they could make it clearer—to local authorities, "Hands off the new offshore oil industry". That was certainly the Government's clear intention when the Oil Taxation Bill, which became the Act of 1975, was before us. We on these Benches assumed that the oilfields and operations connected with them on the British Continental Shelf would not be subjected to rates, local taxation and the petroleum revenue tax which the Government were bringing in, and we also took into account the other taxes which applied to oil companies, such as corporation tax and the petroleum revenue tax. Thus, this order should make it absolutely clear that no rates are to be levied on offshore oil operations, anyway where Scotland is concerned.
I have a query about timing. Three oilfields have been assessed and there are special test cases now before the court. According to Press reports, the Court of Session in Edinburgh was last Thursday, the 16th, starting to deal with the Grampion Regional Council's assessor's assessment of the Forties Field. There are also the Auk and Argyll fields, which have been assessed by Fife Regional Council, and the net annual value of these three oilfields has been put at about £24 million, not a figure to be sneezed at. When do the Government expect this order to become effective? When it is effective it should surely make it clear what the position is and these cases should be concluded without much delay; but at the moment there is a blank in the date in the order, so it is of some interest in relation to these cases when the Government expect the order to come into effect.
We must also look into the recent past because the noble Lord just reminded us that the order is not effective before 16th May 1975; it is that date or a later date which applies. Can the noble Lord tell us whether any assessors in Scotland included any subjects related to the offshore oil industry in valuations before May 1975? If they did, that might still

643
be the cause of legal arguments after this order has gone through. I hope the order will clarify the position and that the noble Lord will be able to answer these questions.
In view of a later debate which we will have tonight I must, on this point, say that I hope the Scottish Office and Scottish Office Ministers will make use of the 1976 Act to clarify the rating position of subjects connected with fish farming below the low water level. The Act is an instrument which can help get us out of the ambiguous situation in which, for example, cages in salt water well below the low water mark containing salmon for fish farms are in a highly equivocal position; people, even owners, do not know what their status is and whether they are rateable. In welcoming this first order, which is very much what we expected, I would point out to the Scottish Office that under the Act they have the opportunity of bringing in other orders connected with other subjects which would help to clarify the position of activities below the low water mark.
8.8 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will reply to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I wish to say at the outset how much I personally welcome the generous terms in which he gave his overall assent to the Bill. Specifically, he posed three questions. I can say, first, that we hope that the order will be effective in August of this year. Secondly, I can advise him that there have been no subjects related to offshore oil installations part of an assessor's valuation prior to 16th May 1975. Thirdly, of more general interest, he will be pleased to know that, meantime, there are discussions between the Department of Agriculture in Scotland, the Ministry of Agriculture in England and numerous fish farming interests about some of the very problems he has posed tonight. The outcome of those discussions will, of course, in the future be the subject of ministerial deliberation, but Lord Campbell has my assurance that I shall certainly keep him informed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

THE LAW ON FISH FARMING
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW The Earl of ONSLOW rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the clarification of the law on fish farming. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall try to be as quick as I can, for it is much later than we had thought it would be. I must also declare an interest, in that I produce approximately 5,000 small trout for a fishing enterprise. Today at Question Time, the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that he always put the interests of producers first. I do not want him to do that. I just want him to give an undertaking which I thought was half given on the previous order by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, before he left the Chamber, that the Government will sort out the present legal mess and try to put fish farming on to a comparable basis with the rest of agriculture and (dare I say it?) with industry. Neither has to labour under the same legal uncertainties as does fish farming. It is interesting to note that the latest laboratory leaflet from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food states,
"That fish farming is an independent industry to be developed in accordance with its own merits is the only view with overall validity."
The leaflet then goes on to use words with which I, as a beef-farmer, am totally at home. It speaks of live weight gains, manipulation of brood stocks and farming strategies. These are but some examples. In fact, I would suggest that there is more in common between raising turbot in artificial cages and the intensive raising of beef, pork, veal and poultry than there is between the latter and the growing of cereals or carrots as arable or vegetable crops.
The view of this laboratory leaflet—it is No. 35 on fish cultivation research—that the production of cheap protein has almost no validity is contrary to the view of the Government of Israel, which has large fish farming enterprises. It is even more in contradiction with the view of the Government of China which, after all, has responsibility for one in four of all the human beings on this earth and which produces vast quantities of farmed fish a year. It is even contrary to the view of a Minister of the Labour persuasion, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who

645
said, during the Committee stage of the Veterinary Surgeons Act:
"But nothing must be taken as in any way denigrating the work being done in connection with fish farming and increasing the amount of protein which is necessary where the inhabitants are near to starvation."—[Official Report, 26/5/1966; col. 1521.]
Clearly, that is only a small part of what the noble Lord said, but I think that it is fair comment on the Government's position at the time.
Mr. Purdom also complains that the fish farming industry is a net user of proteins. That is so, but the beef, poultry and chicken industries are, in proportion, greater users of protein than are fish farmers. The development of molecular hydrocarbon protein, and the use of fish waste and slaughterhouse offal must invalidate that argument.
In previous debates and in the views one has heard from the Ministry of Agriculture, the Ministry's position as regards the fish farmer's worries has been argued with an attitude of mind so laden with excuses for not doing anything that I think it worthwhile to mention some of the points raised. For instance, one of their arguments relates to the difficulty in differentiating between sporting and food sales. Food fish are normally sold dead except in one or two very specialised restaurants where they have a tank into which they may put a dozen or possibly 15 trout. Sporting fish are normally sold alive. Dead trout will not take a fly. Records could easily be kept showing whether the destination was a restaurant, for food, or was for the restocking of a sporting establishment.
It also seems to be the view that, if fish farming is included in agriculture, there is a doubt whether oyster beds should be eligible. The answer is, why not`? After all, they are a source of food. Admittedly, they are at the top end of the market, to use modern marketing jargon, but it was only 200 years ago that one read of Irish actresses starving in a garret on two dozen oysters and a pint of porter. Food fashions can change.
In the case of the marine fish farm, the creation of rights of exploitation is also claimed usually to mean the interruption, if not the extinction, of public rights. From the first Enclosure Acts through
646
compulsory purchase powers to the Community Land Act and aircraft nationalisation many measures have involved the extinction of public rights on, in my view, a far greater scale. The section of the law on how the sea is enclosed for farming is that where the greatest need for reform and clarification and codification exists. At present, the law gives specific rights only to farm molluscs and to enclose the seabed. One is not allowed to enclose water above the seabed. This can only be done by a Several Order. To obtain such an order is a very complicated procedure. Consents must be obtained from the DTI under the Coast Protection Act 1947, from the Crown Estate Commissioners or the Duchies of Cornwall or Lancaster, and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Shellfish Act 1967. All these can involve a public inquiry. There are obscure mediaeval rights of archaic origin and dubious validity which can impose long delays. Substantial objections from almost any source are likely to stop the granting of a Several Order. This effectively allows the creation of public rights at large. In other words, it creates specific rights for people like yachtsmen and water skiers. Incidentally, the Zetland County Council Bill allows the local authority concerned powers to help set up fish farming concerns. Of course, it was not designed for fish farming but for the oil industry, but sometimes good arises from unlikely sources.
There are natural worries among the fish farming community over compensation and the slaughter of salmonids. I believe that, at the moment, this is the only case where there are notifiable diseases. The precedents set by the law on foot-and-mouth disease and brucellosis are good ones which benefit the land farmer and the consumer. Similar rules on ulcerated dermal necrosis and other piscine diseases would give the aquatic farmer and the consumer similar confidence. I noted during the last 15 minutes or so, in the discussion on the Import of Live Fish (Scotland) Bill, which has compensation elements written into it, that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, gave an undertaking that the Government agree to these proposals and approve of them.
The rating law is in a hopeless muddle. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell

647
of Croy, referred to this on the Valuation and Rating (Exempted Classes) (Scotland) Order which we have just discussed. At the moment, the Scots judges say that fish are not livestock. The English rating tribunals say diffierent things on different cases. Parliament is at fault here, for these judgments are all based on exactly the same Statute—one which was passed within the last five years. If we, as Parliamentarians, can get ourselves into such a muddle so quickly, it shows that much legislation is going through Parliament too quickly and is not being properly digested and amended. For instance, the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 gives special protection to mammals, birds and reptiles, which may only be treated medically by a qualified vet. Fish are excluded from this protection.
Provision has been made for the fishermen to deal with the seal that is attacking the fish in his nets, but not for the fish farmer to deal with the seal which attacks his floating cages. The difficulty of prosecuting someone for stealing fish out of an enclosed sea loch is well known. The impossibility of prosecuting someone for stealing molluscs hanging from a raft is equally well known, even though to all intents and purposes they are the private property of the farmer as such.
Planning permission for erection of fish farming sites is another area of doubt to be cleared up. The areas of dottiness are legion; some of them dating back to the dawn of legal memory. Therefore, will this Government, who seem to be so keen on staying in power but have no chance of enacting any controversial legislation, turn their mind to a noncontroversial Act, to the passing of this Act to put fish farming on to a sensible framework and clear up all these present anomalies. This will also—and I say this slightly mischievously, I quite concede—keep some of their own Back-Benchers out of mischief.
8.21 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Onslow for raising this subject. It has come up from time to time in your Lordships' House, but the anomalies that exist at the present time are probably as great as they
648
have ever been as a result of yet another recent decision. Fish farming, in contrast to hunting and catching fish, has grown at any great rate in this country only in the past 20 years or so. Except for monasteries, where, for example, in centuries past carp were kept in ponds for eating, and except for shellfish, which are relatively immobile and can therefore be kept in special areas, fish farming has not been the general way of supplying food in fish form to the inhabitants of this country. But in the past 20 years or so there has been the interest, and there has been experiment and considerable growth in this industry. But the industry is still in its infancy, and I suggest that it needs every encouragement, for in the United Kingdom it is an additional source of food produced within the country. The Government produced their own White Paper on Food From Our Own Resources, and they have outwardly given every impression of wanting to enable as much of it as possible to be produced within our borders and, among other things, save imports.
I should like to consider fish farming in three groups into which I think it falls naturally. First, there is the salt water fish farming, and here this now relates mostly to sole and turbot and also migratory fish—salmon—but they are normally farmed in salt water. The second group are shellfish, and the third fresh water fish farms, where trout are mostly the fish which are farmed. Those people who have embarked upon fish farming and have started enterprises have, as my noble friend described, been handicapped by difficulties and penalties arising from the lack of any clear classification where they are concerned, and also because they find themselves ineligible for treatment or assistance, such as is received by agriculture or horticulture. The effect has been a worrying one for those who have invested and got started in the business, and it has also been discouraging for them and for others who were also considering starting. The prime example of this has been mentioned by my noble friend; that is, the rating of land and buildings, where for many years, since the 1920s, rates have not been paid on land and buildings in agriculture.
The position of fish farming has been ambiguous. Both in rating and in other matters a fish farmer does not know how he is to be classified or treated, and this, I

649
suggest, is most unsatisfactory. There has been a laboratory leaflet, No. 35, in which Dr. Purdom, a scientist working with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food, has produced comments and information about fish farming. He has said that it should be an independent industry, as my noble friend has quoted, and this may well be correct, but I suggest that it is most unsettling for this to be produced without accompanying plans or an explanation of the Government's attitude. I know that it is only the view of a scientist and that it has been produced as a helpful contribution. None the less, it has highlighted the situation of fish farmers; that is, that here is yet another opinion which has been given of what their status is and how their industry should be treated. That was the basis of an article in The Times newspaper yesterday, which was entirely based on that laboratory leaflet.
My Lords, I should now like to deal with the three groups in turn. Salt water fish farming in the sea and in sea water lochs has been largely experimental so far. It has been carried out in cages and closed off areas, and, as I pointed out in the discussion on one of the previous items of Business today, the Rating and Valuation (Scotland) Act 1976 could well be applied by the Secretary of State presenting orders which would clarify the rating position as regards subjects below the low water mark where Scotland is concerned. But this side of fish farming has been experimental because the earlier hopes where plaice were concerned—and most of the first salt water fish farming was carried out with plaice—were disappointing, and now the fish farms are concentrating more on sole and turbot.
The second group, shellfish, are not new. Shellfish have been farmed for many years in this country, but there is still argument about the status and ownership of, for example, oyster beds, and there is the question of status, rate-ability and ownership where shellfish are, as some of the species are, grown on ropes hanging in the water from rafts. That is yet another example of the legal difficulties that arise.
The third group, the freshwater fish farms, presents the type of farm where there has been most expansion in the past 20 years. The species of fish has been
650
trout, and usually it is rainbow trout. My noble friend referred to the question of rating, and I should like to say a few words about this because it has been one of the main grievances of fish farmers. It is in interpretation of the 1971 Act that the contradictions have occurred. The Lands Tribunal in 1974 interpreted the 1971 Act, where England and Wales are concerned, on the basis that the definition "livestock" included fish and that therefore fish farmers should be on a par with agriculture and not have to pay rates. But a contrary decision was taken in the same year in Scotland on interpretation there. So we had a position where in Scotland the definition "livestock" did not include fish. That is the kind of anomaly which has arisen. I know that very recently a different decision has been taken again in England and Wales which has contradicted the earlier one, but that only makes the confusion worse confounded.
In the last year or two when these matters have been raised, the Government have said that they were waiting for Layfield. They were waiting for the report of the committee which had been asked to look into the whole question of local government taxation and rating. But now Layfield have reported and the Government have already pronounced on the Layfield recommendation about rating agriculture, and the Government have made it clear that, despite the recommendation of the Layfield Committee, they do not propose to start rating agriculture. That does not surprise me, my Lords, because clearly this would be something which would immediately have an effect on putting up the price of food.
Moreover, I would suggest that in the foreseeable future, for several years, no Government are likely to bring forward a measure which would cause agriculture to pay rates and automatically and unnecessarily put up the price of food in this country, when the major battle is against inflation and this Government are trying to keep prices down as part of their arrangements with the TUC.
There is a difficulty about rating which I think the Government have in mind but which I do not think is a very great difficulty, and that is that some freshwater fish farms produce fish for food and others produce fish for stocking rivers, lakes and lochs, and therefore for sport; and

651
there is an argument that the derating of fish farms should apply to those which are producing fish for food. This need not hold up the rationalisation of this industry. I would say to noble Lords opposite: Let Parliament decide whether there is to be a distinction between fish farms which produce fish for food and those which produce fish for sport. What is quite certain is that rationalisation would give encouragement to this industry, which is not competing with any other British industry in its products but is simply producing additional food.
As my noble friend reminded us, the Government are short of non-political legislation. If this Government go into the next Session they will be looking for more non-political legislation. Here is a subject which is crying out for order and encouragement; and, though there may be arguments—my noble friend suggested that it was non-controversial; I think there may well be some arguments, which will not follow Party lines, on what might be the best drafting of the Bill—this is a subject which the Government could safely take up, knowing that they would get support from all sides of both Houses.
8.32 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, a number of us have been hammering away for some years at the importance of fish farming to a country such as ours, which imports roughly half our foodstuffs and a large quantity of our fish. But we do not feel that we have really got anywhere; we do not feel that we have made any headway. I myself have played a small part in this, in that I temporarily took the chair at Sub-Committee D of the Select Committee studying European legislation when we had to consider the EEC regulations on the restructuring of marine fish farming. We took evidence from a number of expert witnesses, including the Ministry of Agriculture, the White Fish Authority and commercial fish farming interests, and I think that at the end of it we were pretty well informed about the subject.
Our report was debated in your Lordships' House on the 26th July of last year, and I then had the privilege of introducing it. We drew attention to a number of steps which we thought the Government should take. For example,
652
we emphasised the need for reserved areas, especially on the West Coast of Scotland, because of the limited number of sites which were available for fish farming. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who was then replying for the Government, said that, while he agreed with this in the abstract, it was impossible to implement in practice because the whole thing was too indefinite in the future and areas could not be reserved. But we were not talking in terms of thousands of acres; we were talking in terms of a few hundred acres in specific lochs, and this was a typical instance of where it would have cost the Government nothing but where they could have gone a little way, perhaps, towards meeting the views of the Committee.
We also drew attention to the need for legislation. We ended up in paragraph 21 of our report:
"The Committee understand that the question of legislation in aquaculture is receiving the Ministry's attention. They believe the time has come when action is required".
That was a year ago. This all took place at about the same time as my noble friends Lady Emmet and Lord Balerno carried their Amendment in your Lordships' House to the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to put aquaculture and agriculture on the same footing—an Amendment which was, unfortunately, rejected in another place. It is not for me to speak for my noble friends, but I do not think that they thought that this was the ideal way to deal with it. What they wanted was a Bill to be brought in by the Government; but, in the absence of such a Bill, they thought that the amendment of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill would at least give some relief to fish farmers in the immediate future.
I have tried very hard to understand the reasons for the lukewarm Government attitude towards the encouragement of fish farming in this country, and I have reread the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, in this House and of Mr. Bishop in another place. I am bound to say that I find their arguments quite unconvincing. What it really boils down to is that the Ministry considers that the potentiality for increasing farmed fish is very limited in the foreseeable future, and that in any case the only fish being farmed are the luxury and not the so-called traditional fish, such as cod and haddock.

653
This latest argument, which was again trotted out by Mr. Bishop in the debate in another place last October, seems to me so ludicrous that it hardly bears examination. Not only is there a considerable export potential for luxury fish, hut, perhaps more important, what is a luxury food today can well become the traditional food of tomorrow, and vice versa. One has only to look at chicken, on the one hand, and oysters and salmon, on the other—and my noble friend has already touched on this aspect of the matter. Only by experimenting with a high-price product can the fish farmers eventually produce commercially at a lower price.
So far as potentiality is concerned, am afraid I must disagree with the Government view. I believe there to be great potential, given the necessary Government action and support. For instance, in 1975 Mr. Sedgewick, the chief inspector of salmon and freshwater fisheries in Scotland, suggested it might be possible to produce between 20,000 and 30,000 tons of farmed salmon a year, and this figure was confirmed to our Committee by the chairman of Marine Harvests Limited, a subsidiary of the Unilever company, who are already producing farmed salmon commercially. We were also informed that some 6,000 tons of turbot and sole might be produced. When one bears in mind that the total consumption of salmon in this country at the present time is roughly 7,000 tons a year and, of sole, a little more than 1,000 tons, one sees not only what this production could do for our food supply but also what it could do in the way of helping our exports.
One of the reasons put forward by the Government for their inaction is that they are waiting on the industry to put forward their proposals for altering the existing law. I think that this is a little disingenuous and unworthy. The Government are perfectly well aware of the changes that are required. They have been spelled out to them on a number of different occasions. A Working Group, including the NFU Fish Farming Section, the Salmon and Trout Association, the Fisheries Organisation Society, the British Trout Farmers' Association and the Shellfish Association of Great Britain, have produced a document entitled Issues Considered by a Working Group convened to identify and examine Legislative and
654
Administrative Matters affecting Fish Farmers.
On October 19th, in another place, Mr. Bishop said that a reply to the Ministry's queries on that document had been received and was now being studied. I mention this because in a previous debate the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, said that nothing could be done because they were waiting for the fish farmers' reply. It seems to me that any Government worth their salt should now be in a position to draft the necessary legislation and to place it before Parliament.
My Lords, if the Unstarred Question of my noble friend Lord Onslow has done anything this evening to speed this process he will have performed the most valuable service.
8.41 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it is some months since the House discussed fish farming, and I think that we are indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, for giving us another opportunity to do so. His Unstarred Question, of course, deals specifically with the legal aspect and he confined himself in his speech to this. But I felt sure that the debate would range far and wide over many other matters connected with this fascinating subject. Indeed, I was not wrong when I heard the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Vernon.
The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and other noble Lords criticised the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Vernon, said that we were lukewarm. In fact, he said that I was lukewarm in my speeches. So far as I can remember, I have always stressed that the Government—
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I said that the Government were lukewarm.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the noble Lord referred to my speeches. I have always stressed that we believe greatly in the potentiality of fish farming. Indeed, we are giving £1 million a year for research and development to the fish farmers—which I think is proof of the fact that we believe that this has a future. But I must put this into perspective in view of some remarks that the noble Lord, Lord Vernon has made. It has potential;

655
but when you think that at the moment there are 2,500 tonnes of farmed fish in this country compared with 1 million tonnes of landed deep-sea fish, and if you multiply this by 10 or 20, it is still only a fraction of the deep sea fish. On the other hand, there is potential for what the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, described as the luxury fish. I do not think it is a luxury at all. It is fish that I should like to see more widely consumed—fish such as trout and salmon.
There is a potential there; but here we are constrained by breeding and genetics. This is not a matter of manufacturing motor cars; there is constraint by the problems of breeding and genetics. At the moment, the only species where there has been a break through has been in trout and, to a certain extent, salmon. With regard to turbot and most of the other species, it is still in its infancy. This is not something that Governments, however active or willing, can do anything about until the scientists and those conducting the experiments have had a break through.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to correct some of the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi. The laboratory leaflet issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food says 2,500 tonnes admittedly, but 800,000 tonnes landed. Admittedly, that is a 20 per cent. decrease; but, furthermore, it says that the worldwide annual fish catch is 85 million tonnes and that very nearly 10 per cent. (in other words, 7 million tonnes) are fish farmed. The United Kingdom lags very heavily behind the rest of the world in its fish farming when with a little sorting out of legislation it could do very much better.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, it does not lag far behind if it is compared with European countries like France and Italy. It lags behind countries like Japan and other countries in the Far East where they are producing artificial carp on a large scale. This, we understand, is not suitable for this country. Here the accent has been mainly on trout. I do not think it is fair to compare our production with world production which mostly consists of carp.
656
My Lords, I should like to say a few words about the individual issues on which it has been suggested that the law needs clarifying and changing. Here I must, if I may, take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Vernon. We are waiting on the NFU and the fish farming interests. This was at their request. We had many weeks of talking with them last year and earlier this year. Then they said that they preferred to have their own discussions among themselves which are being coordinated by the NFU and then they would come back to the Department with specific proposals in areas where they thought the law needed clarification or changing. This was at their request; it was not some kind of device by the Government to shift responsibility. I thought it unfair of the noble Lord to say that and I want to put the matter right.
There have been various questions raised by noble Lords. One of the most important is the question of rating liability on which different courts have taken different views. The question has been complicated by the Layfield Committee on Local Government Finance, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said, which recommended that agriculture no longer should be exempt from rating liability. However, the Government have now decided, as is well known, not to implement that recommendation. It may be desirable to clarify the law when possible; but we need to see any case developed by the fish farmers first.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also suggested that fish were included in the definition of "livestock" on one side of the Border but not on the other. To the best of my knowledge, that is not the case so far as statutory definitions are concerned. The House will appreciate that there are many different definitions in the Statutes and that it is not easy to he sure that one has examined them all; but what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, may have in mind is the divergent interpretations which English and Scottish courts have put upon the term "livestock" as it occurs in the Rating Act 1971. The practical effect is that at present fish farms are held to be rateable in Scotland but not in England and Wales.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? It was, as I have said, the interpre-

657
tations that have been placed by the Land Tribunal (and the equivalent body in Scotland) which have led to the definitions where fish farmers' rateability was concerned being opposite on each side of the Border. It was a matter of the interpretation of the 1971 Act.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, yes, that is absolutely true. There have been suggestions that fish farmers are treated less favourably than farmers in respect of some fiscal measures. In particular, capital allowances against income tax; capital transfer tax; vehicle licences and vehicle fuel duties. I am glad to say that this is not the case, as the Inland Revenue are prepared to look favourably on fish production for food.
It has sometimes been claimed that fish farmers lack clear legal protection for their stock and installations—and this was mentioned by the noble Earl—and that they are inhibited in dealing with predators. I am advised that protection for installations and for stock, where this can be shown to be securely held, is available in England and Wales under statute law, and in England under common law. Clarification is needed only where there is doubt whether the stock is properly held, as in the case of shellfish grown on ropes or the like above the seabed, or fish kept in sealed arms of the sea. The latter is not, I understand, a practice likely to be adopted in this country.
"Predators" in this context means birds and seals. So far as the killing of birds is concerned, fish farmers have the same rights to protect their property—not of course unlimited rights—as farmers have. They appear to be less well placed in relation to seals, which can of course do considerable damage to fish kept in sea cages. Any proposals to revise the law in this area would have to take conservation needs into account.
The question of conservation also arises on another front. Fisheries law includes a number of restrictions, for example on selling salmon during the close season, which are designed to conserve wild stocks of fish. It is generally recognised that these measures are unnecessary and inappropriate for farmed fish, and that the latter should, so far as possible, be excluded from them. In Scotland the point is
658
covered mainly by the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976. In England and Wales I understand that there is no practical difficulty at present, since neither salmon nor sea trout are farmed. Here again, if further legislation is contemplated, it will be necessary to see that genuine conservation needs are not neglected.
There are, of course, a number of other specific points which are alluded to from time to time by the fish farming interests and have been referred to in this debate. It is asked whether fish farmers should be better placed to get grants under the Industry Act 1972. Fish farming is eligible for selective assistance under Section 7 of the Act, subject to the statutory criteria.
Then it is said that fish farming is constrained by planning law. This is, of course, a matter which is largely in the hands of local planning authorities. It is for them to decide whether development for fish farming purposes is permitted by the general development order or whether they should call for an application for planning permission. In the absence of any judicial ruling, the Government cannot say with certainty whether or not fish farming comes within the scope of agricultural permitted development under the GDO.
It is also suggested from time to time that the Government should provide an advisory service for fish farmers. While at present fish farmers do not enjoy a free locally-based advisory service, on the other hand the level of scientific R and D—to which I referred earlier—funded by Government is high in relation to the number of fish farms, and high quality scientific advice is available from the laboratories of the Fisheries Department.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, in this context, while the noble Lord is talking about the high quality advice that is available, it is also available from people like the Thames Water Authority. They have been extremely helpful to me and one wants to put the helpful side—which I did not—as well as the things like planning law, et cetera, which are in a muddle.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I take the point. I agree with what the noble Earl has said. One of the most important questions raised by the noble Earl, and

659
the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, was that there should be legislative provisions to enable fish farmers to obtain exclusive rights over areas of sea and seabed. This of course is a very wide and far-reaching matter, far more far-reaching I thought than the noble Lord, Lord Vernon, seemed to appreciate. The Crown holds in trust for the public rights of navigation, white fishing and access for recreation, and these rights are inalienable except by Parliamentary sanction. The Crown also holds rights of property of the foreshore between high and low water marks. That is why all the coasts around the United Kingdom are free to the public, unlike with many Continental countries.
Fish farmers claim that these arrangements do not afford them full security, both of property and of tenure. The Cameron Committee, in its Report on the Regulation of Scottish Inshore Fisheries, commented that the law needed restating and extending to allow fish farmers exclusive rights in areas of the sea. It is recognised however that any such extension would involve the curtailment or extinction of public rights. In these circumstances, the effect of granting to fish farmers exclusive access to areas of sea would have to be weighed against the resultant loss of public rights. It would of course be a very revolutionary measure as far as this country is concerned.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, if the noble Lord will give way for one moment, the point I was trying to make was this. If, for instance, an authority had it in mind to set up a marina or some such thing on a particular Scottish loch which was suitable for fish farming—and there are very few such sites which are suitable—it might be politic to deny the development to the marina and allow that site to be made available for fish farming. This would require Government intervention.
660
I was not suggesting that there should be gross violation of public rights; I was just suggesting a little common sense by the Government.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, this would be a matter for the planning inquiry. I do not think it would be for the Government to step in and say that we would rather have a fish farm that a marina. This is a matter for the planning inquiry.
Before the noble Lord interrupted me, I was going on to say that fish farmers who wish to anchor sea cages or construct any other form of enclosure to hold their stocks, may do so provided they obtain a lease from the Crown Estate Commissioners which gives them an exclusive right to anchor their cages, and permission from the Department of Trade to create an obstacle to navigation. So this is allowed of course in certain circumstances. This is one of the matters which are being considered at the moment.
I think and hope that I have referred to all the more significant points which have been raised by fish farmers and which fall within the scope of the Question. As I said at the beginning of my speech, the NFU and other representative bodies are now conducting detailed studies with a view to submitting their suggestions for both legislative and administrative changes. I believe that we shall be getting these proposals within the next couple of months or so, and they will of course be given careful consideration. This Government will then be able to make a further general review of the situation.

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL
Examiners Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.