Lords Sitting of 27 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 Norwich.
The Earl of Crawford and Balcarres (L. Balniel)—Presented his Writ as Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, and took the Oath accordingly.

ANGOLA: CUBAN TROOPS
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary during his visit in early May to President Neto of Angola asked about the undertaking to reduce the numbers of Cuban troops in that country and, if so, what response he got.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary did not raise this matter with President Neto.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask why he did not raise it with the President, because surely it is all-important? Cannot these Cuban troops be classified as mercenaries? As they are now extending their operations to, I believe, about 18 different countries including Libya, call the noble Lord say what action will be taken by Her Majesty's Government to raise the matter with the United Nations.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERT'S: My Lords, the noble Baroness and the House will recall our exchanges in this House on 17th May on this matter when, in reply to a similar Question, I said that sovereign independent States are entitled to decide from which countries they choose to seek assistance; therefore it would not be
886
appropriate to raise this matter at the meeting which the Foreign Secretary had with President Neto, among others, when he visited Africa last. However, I also indicated—and I repeat it today—that there are other channels through which we can make, and have made, our views very clearly understood about the appalling interference from outside by one country in the affairs of another.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the Minister confirm that when President Neto asked for assistance from the Cubans there was not a sovereign State, and he was not in fact President of Angola; and does that not alter the status of the Cubans in Angola.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Baroness puts the position correctly. However, at that time we made representations to both the Russians and the Cubans because the channels then were quite different from today's.
Lord PLUNKET: My Lords, would the Minister agree that perhaps the most important task in Africa for Her Majesty's Government is to achieve a Rhodesian settlement; that so long as there are Cuban troops in central Africa credence is lent to Mr. Smith's spurious argument that he is a bastion of the West, and that this is not helping our negotiating team out there.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I would agree, my Lords. This is a dangerous situation anyway and the only difference between me and those who have spoken this afternoon is the appropriateness of raising this matter in the kind of meeting that the Foreign Secretary had with President Neto in May. There is no doubt that the presence of troops from one country in another country, even at the request of the second country, can only have an unsettling effect on Africa. As I have said before, détente is indivisible and if it is conducive to détente in Europe that there should be no interference by one country with another, surely the same applies to Africa.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, does the noble Lord's reluctance to interfere in the internal affairs of another country apply to South Africa.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I was not aware that we were interfering in the affairs of South Africa. We, with the rest of the civilised world, are extending to South Africa excellent advice about apartheid.
Baroness ELLES: But, my Lords, following my former question, would the Minister agree that the British Government have recognised as a State a body of people who were supported by an outside aggressive group of soldiers.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with a great many other countries, among them friends and allies of ours, we have given recognition to the present Angolan Government. This is not exceptional; indeed it is desirable that we should recognise a country as soon as certain criteria are satisfied, as they were in this case. We hope to move from recognition to full diplomatic relationship as soon as possible.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether or not troops from other countries as well as Cuba intervened in Angola, and whether it is not a fact that the South African troops were there before the Cuban troops went there.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, at the time when there was civil war in Angola we expressed clearly to all concerned that it was quite wrong and dangerous for them to interfere in the affairs of Angola. Since then, the Angolan Government have been set up and recognised by a very large number of countries, and the situation has changed. It is for the Angolan Government to decide who they will invite to come in or stay to assist them. I am not aware that they have invited South Africans to come in.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, following the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would the Minister agree that the South Africans withdrew their troops from Angola and that there are now no more South African troops in Angolan territory.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course I can confirm that.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, when the Foreign Secretary visited that country did he raise the question of British prisoners in Angola.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords. It is part of the object of extending recognition into the field of diplomatic relations that in that way we shall be the better able to protect British interests, and indeed British subjects who may be in difficulty in such a country. At the moment the Italian Government and Embassy in Luanda are helping us in this respect, and we are very grateful to them.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that, shortly after the major hostilities in Angola, an undertaking was given by the USSR that the Cuban troops would be withdrawn within the next 10 or 12 months? Could they be asked to honour that obligation.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as the noble Baroness reminds us, there were indications at one stage that the Cubans might consider a gradual withdrawal. We hope that Cuban intentions remain of that order. I cannot confirm the numbers of Cubans in the country. I was asked when I answered questions on this point a few weeks ago. I have looked into this matter again. It does not seem to me that there is evidence of any reduction since I last spoke about this subject in the House, and the House should know it; 15,000 may still be a reasonable estimate. However, as to the second point raised by the noble Baroness, we shall, I repeat, take every appropriate opportunity of making clear to the Cubans, to the Government of the USSR and indeed to all concerned, that we hope very much that a withdrawal will take place from this and similar countries in Africa in the interests of creating a more stable situation in that Continent.

HOUSEHOLD CAVALRY SENTRIES
2.45 p.m.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to isolate the Household Cavalry sentries in Whitehall from the crowds of tourists this summer.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have no plans to isolate either the mounted or dismounted sentries of the Household Cavalry at Horse Guards this summer.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are a number of people, including a number of ex-officers of the Brigade to whom I have spoken, who think that this puts an intolerable strain on the men concerned and that it is unnecessary purely in the interests of ceremonial? Can we not spare these men this strain, which will undoubtedly get worse as hordes of welcome tourists increase in future years.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend who normally answers for the Ministry of Defence from this Box will take fully into account the views expressed by the noble Lord. All I can say is that the views of the Metropolitan Police authorities, as we have ascertained them—indeed, since this Question was tabled—confirm that they are quite content with the present arrangements. That is not to say, of course, that from time to time there will not be a review of these arrangements to prevent any possibility of the kind of difficulty that the noble Lord has in mind.
Lord NAPIER and ETTRICK: My Lords, is there not a similarity here to the situation of the Foot Guards, who, the noble Lord may recall, were moved behind the railings of the forecourt of Buckingham Palace several years ago.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think the view is that these incidents do not compare with the situation in which we were forced—in 1968, I believe—to move the beats of the Buckingham Palace sentries from outside the railings to the forecourt. There is a difference of nature about the two situations. However, I repeat that I am quite sure that my right honourable friend
890
and, indeed, my noble friend who answers these Questions will take into account what has been said in the House today.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whose responsibility it would be if, with these crowds pressing on the sentries, one of the horses became frightened and someone in the crowd was injured.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I really do not know. What I am quite certain about is that it would not be the responsibility of the horse. These situations, of course, can become quite serious, as the noble Lord has reminded us in another context. This has been looked at in the light of the noble Lord's Question. The police authorities have been asked for their views. There does not seem to be a consensus view that these arrangements need to be changed at the moment; that is to say, this summer. However, nothing is lost by keeping this kind of situation and arrangement under constant review, and I am quite sure my right honourable friend and the Metropolitan Police authorities will continue to do just that.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, has the noble Lord ascertained the views of the sentries.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the attentions that pretty girls are apt to pay to horses are not always unwelcome to the riders.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not think we ought to make heavy weather about this. As to the question whether I personally have ascertained the views of the sentries, the answer is, no.

TOP SALARIES REVIEW BOARD REPORT No. 6
2.50 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: 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 whole or main time board

891
appointments were covered in the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Board Report No. 6, which was presented to Parliament in December 1974; and how many of these posts are at present not filled.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, to answer the noble Lord's Question I have referred to the 1974 White Paper on Public Boards (Cmnd. 5609). Taking main time appointments as meaning part-time appointments of two and a half days per week or more, the number of whole and main time appointments on 1st April 1974 on the hoards covered by Report No. 6 of the Review Body on Top Salaries was 113. At present seven of these posts are unfilled, although in one case an appointment has already been made to fill the vacancy later this year.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, in view of the hopes that the noble Lord held out a month ago, can he say when the Government intend to pay to the holders of these appointments not the rate for the job but what was found by an impartial body to be the rate for the job three years ago.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I said during that debate—which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter—that I was sympathetic to his point of view. Only last week I met members of the boards on this matter. I cannot give a specific date or make any announcement at this stage.

NAMIBIA: INTERIM ADMINISTRATION
2.51 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been reached during the discussions between representatives of the United Kingdom, USA, France, West Germany and Canada, and a representative of the Republic of South Africa regarding the future of Namibia (South West Africa).
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, following further discussions between representatives of the Five Powers and the South African Government on the basis of Security Council Resolution 385, it has been announced that the Turnhalle proposals have been withdrawn. The South African Government have passed legislation which will empower the State President to govern Namibia by decree through an Administrator-General in the interim period leading to independence. Elections are to be held for a constituent assembly that will draw up a constitution for an independent Namibia.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I welcome the concessions that have been obtained, but is not the difficulty the maintenance of a South African Administrator-General? Is the representative of the United Nations, who has been appointed to co-operate with him, to Pave equal powers, or would it be possible to consider a tripartite arrangement by which an international jurist or a high commissioner was added to those two.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, those are indeed interesting suggestions. I am very glad to say that the South African Government have been most co-operative and helpful in this matter. The present proposal is that an Administrator-General—who might be a judge of high repute, although the options are not closed in that respect—will, as it were, be accompanied, on, I imagine, on a basis of equality, by a representative of the Secretary General of the United Nations. One would not wish to say anything at this moment to prejudice Dr. Waldeheim's choice in the matter. It is very much a matter for him in a personal and official capacity. So the duumvirate of the Administrator-General and the United Nations representative would move together to ensure conditions of order in the run-up to independence, the holding of free elections and, prospectively, the handling of the necessary transition period from the date of independence to the firm establishment of the new independent Government.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the Minister say who will be responsible for law and order and what powers that person will have in enforcing law and order.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is under consideration. I take the point made by the noble Baroness. Of course, one would feel, and I am sure that she would agree, that a United Nations presence of a civilian type was preferable, but one must consider and look forward to the possible substitution of a policing force—and I do not prejudge the possibility of a UN peace-keeping force—so that there is no gap between what already exists to keep order and a new more international system to maintain order while this territory is framing its own arrangements for internal law and order.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how a United Nations force, even a civilian force, could possibly keep law there, without any knowledge of the 11 or more languages that are spoken and without any knowledge of the peoples themselves.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I was addressing myself to the need for arrangements to ensure that there is no gap between provision for law and order at the moment and the prospective situation that we, with the South African Government, among others, are all working to create in this territory which is soon to become a State. I was very careful to indicate that none of us would wish to prejudge the form of any international or other force to maintain order during that transition period.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, arising from those questions and answers, may I ask whether any undertaking has been given that South Africa, whose troops in Namibia are stated to reach 50,000, will withdraw them.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my understanding is that the South African Government have undertaken to withdraw their troops at independence.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, as the Question refers to the future of South-West Africa, does the Minister recognise that SWAPO refused to participate in the Turnhalle Conference, which was representative of all the ethnic groups in that small total population of under 1 million, and that SWAPO is, or was, a movement founded by subversive Communist agencies in the Republic of South Africa.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that I am within the recollection of the House as never having said anything to underestimate the possibilities of the Turnhalle Conference. However, they did not commend themselves to a sufficient wide range of interests in the territory and the Turnhalle delegates themselves have acknowledged that their proposals were not acceptable. They have now said that they see free elections as the way to resolve the problem. We may now look forward to the future of Namibia being settled by free elections under, one hopes, international supervision and guarantee.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, I do not want to press the Minister, but can he reply to the question: does the Government regard SWAPO as representative of any part or the whole of South-West Africa.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, yes, certainly; SWAPO is an important element in the representation of the peoples of South-West Africa, Namibia. It is not the only element, but it is an important one.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the peoples of Namibia will be able to prove whether or not they agree that SWAPO represents them when they have free elections.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the elections of a constituent assembly will indeed make their attitude clear on that point.

TRANSPORT POLICY
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Stedman will repeat a Statement on the White Paper on Transport policy.
COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47; read 1a.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
2.58 p.m.
Lord PEART Lord PEART rose to move, That the order of 2nd December last relating to the appointment of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments be amended as follows—
After paragraph 1(d) insert "but excluding any order in council or draft order in council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Orders in Council made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 are technically Statutory Instruments within the terms of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. They therefore fall within the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
In reality, however, during direct rule these Orders in Council are the principal means of making primary legislation for Northern Ireland on reserved and transferred matters within the meaning of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. They are the direct successors to the Acts of the Northern Ireland Parliament and Measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly, and are similarly published in the annual volumes of the Northern Ireland Statutes. Moreover, they are drafted so as to fit into the existing Northern Ireland primary legislation: this is vital since they form part of a continuous corpus of law derived from the old law of Ireland which can thus be preserved intact despite the supension of devolved government.
The Orders in Council have presented a number of problems for the Joint Committee whose function is to give scrutiny to delegated legislation on technical questions which do not impinge on the merits of that legislation. The Committee have been obliged to scrutinise these orders as if they were ordinary delegated legislation, with all the consequent problems that have arisen from the differences in subject matter and drafting practice. The Committee have suggested that it would be preferable to exclude these
896
Orders in Council from their terms of reference and the Government have agreed to their suggestion. The orders will of course still be subject to full discussion on the Floor of the House. The Motion before the House accordingly seeks to amend the Committee's terms of reference to remove these Orders in Council and I should remind the House that a Message was received from another place on Wednesday saying that a similar amendment had been made there.
It might be helpful if I also add a word about the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. There is a requirement under Standing Order 68 that no resolution to approve an Affirmative Instrument shall be moved until the Joint Committee has reported on the instrument. It follows that if the first Motion is agreed to we must also exempt Northern Ireland Orders from the provisions of this Standing Order. I therefore beg to move the first Motion.
Moved, That the order of 2nd December last relating to the appointment of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments be amended as follows—
After paragraph 1(d) insert "but excluding any order in council or draft order in council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.".—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 68 relating to public business be amended as follows—
At the end of paragraph 2 insert "nor any order in council or draft order in council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.".— (Lord Pearl.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON HYDRAULIC POWER BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

VISCOUNTCY OF OXFUIRD
3.2 p.m.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, I beg to move that the report from the Committee for Privileges be agreed to.
Moved, That the report from the Committee for Privileges be agreed to.—(Lord Wilberforce.)
Lord MOLSON: My Lords, I support the Motion that has been moved by the noble and learned Lord. I respectfully concur in the opinion of my noble and learned colleagues. Nothing that I am now about to say in any way detracts from that concurrence in their opinion that this petition should be granted. Since lay Lords are appointed to sit with law Lords in peerage petition cases it is to be assumed that after the existing law has been stated it is proper for a non-legalistic view to be expressed and for your Lordships to be respectfully advised if amendments of the law are needed.
I am of the opinion that no petition of this nature should ever again be entertained. It would be presumptuous and otiose for me to attempt to explain any of the complexities of the peerage law of Scotland in the 17th and 16th centuries, as this has been expounded by my noble and learned colleagues with all the clarity and certainty of which such an arcane subject permits. This system of law ended as regards new creations of nobility with the Act of Union in 1707. It has, however, maintained a phantom existence and comes back to life from time to time like a ghost from the tomb, to the embarrassment of the living, when problems arise relating to pre-1707 peerages. Consequently the rules of law and custom obtaining in the 17th and 16th centuries in Scotland have to be studied and elucidated in order that petitions of this kind may be heard, at great public expense, with a view to the revival of some historic title of nobility.
The present petition is an example. The 12th Baronet is the collateral heir
898
of the gentleman who was created the first baronet and later created the first Viscount. He seeks to make out his claim to be the third Viscount. The second Viscount died in 1705. What might at first sight appear a simple case has in fact proved to be one of great complexity. The main reason was the right of a Scottish Peer to surrender, through a complicated procedure, to the Sovereign his peerage and receive it back, usually with different limitations as to heirs, who might be descendants, or collaterals, or even anyone whom he named. It was a purported surrender of this kind which was thought to have separated the viscountcy from the baronetcy in 1705. The complex rules governing such surrenders and re-grants are, and probably have always been, a matter of argument and controversy. The problem has been further complicated by the number of contemporary documents relating to this matter and the loss of some of them since 1650.
The common ancestor—I might say the fons et origo—of all this controversy was Sir James Makgill, who died in 1553, and was the great grandfather of the first Viscount. The difficulties of this case, even in the 18th century when these transactions were not so remote in time, are illustrated by the facts that the petitioner's ancestor was allowed in 1733 to vote as a Peer for the representative Peers of Scotland. The objector did not claim the title for himself, but it is not known for certain why he did not do so.
In 1735, that is two years later, the Committee for Privileges of this House decided that the present petitioner's predecessor had not proved his claim to the viscountcy, although they did not say that it was unfounded. Your Lordships' House then accepted the report of the Committee for Privileges. Your present Committee had to consider whether they were bound by this precedent, but after due consideration they decided they were not. The previous Committee, in 1735, had not said that the case was bad but only that the case was not proven.
What is the effect of our report and what general conclusion should we draw from this renewed petition, at great expense of time and money, after 242 years for the Viscountcy of Oxfuird? I put a

899
Parliamentary Question to ask the estimated cost to public funds of this petition. Shorthand, printing and publishing expenses amounted to £5,650, but the most important part of the true cost was not stated; that is, the Treasury Solicitor, the law officers and the Lord Advocate all had to take time from their other duties to consider this petition. Most important of all, four law Lords, the senior and highly paid members of the Judiciary, had to devote two and a half days to the hearing.
How much midnight oil they burnt in producing their erudite judgments I do not know. I respectfully admire their lucubrations, but doubt whether the matter at issue entirely merited them. After all, the question at issue was only, to repeat myself, whether Sir John Donald Makgill, the 12th Baronet, is entitled to succeed as third Viscount in 1977 to his collateral male ancestor, the second Viscount, who died in 1705.
I have referred to the monetary cost, but I attach far more importance to the fact that these four noble and learned colleagues of ours in this House should have had to devote so much time to a matter of this kind. Much as we all value the opportunity of rendering public service in your Lordships' House I cannot bring myself to believe that the recruitment of one more to our number by the elucidation of antiquated rules of law justifies this labour and expense.
What, then, do I propose? I recommend the repeal of all, or almost all, of this archaic law which Parliament decided in 1707 should not apply in future to any newly-created peerages. The duty of the Committee for Privileges is to state the law as it is, and that we have done with the skilled guidance of our learned colleagues. The duty of the Procedure Committee is to give guidance on the procedure of the House as it is not constituted. Neither committee seems to me appropriate for the task I have in view. I propose the appointment of an appropriately composed committee to decide whether to repeal for the future the whole or part of the archaic peerage law of Scotland applying to Scottish peerages which were created prior to the Act of Union of 1707, and I would give them power to make any appropriate recommendations regarding the con-
900
temporary peerage law of the United Kingdom; I add that out of regard for Scottish national sensitivity.
The appointment of such a committee as I recommend would not be a novel departure. The Sumner Committee of 1926, although not an exact precedent, is certainly relevant. Your Lordships' House then appointed a Select Committee to inquire into the subject of English peerages in abeyance. The increasing number of petitions that ancient peerages should be called out of abeyance was threatening to become an excessive burden on the Committee for Privileges, and the law and usage on the subject was unsatisfactory. The Committee's first and unanimous recommendation was:
"No abeyance should be terminated, the first commencement of which occurred more than 100 years before the presentation of the petition".
In recent years your Lordships have not been averse from abolishing inappropriate or antiquated rules such as that requiring a Peer accused of crime to he tried by his peers. If, in discussing a normal Scottish peerage law of former times, I have in any way fallen into error of detail, that does not affect my general recommendation that it should he authoritatively and critically reviewed to bring it into harmony with modern conditions and thought, and that a committee should be appointed to consider this matter.
3.18 p.m.
Lord KEITH of KINKEL: My Lords, having sat for so short a time in your Lordships' House, it is with considerable diffidence that I venture to bring before you some considerations which may be relevant to your Lordships' deliberations on the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. First of all, I suggest it is desirable to understand the nature of a Scottish peerage. It is a species of heritable property which descends to heirs according to the canons which, in the law of Scotland, are appropriate to the descent of any kind of heritable property, and of course your Lordships will appreciate that land is the most important kind of heritable property.
Unless a peerage of Scotland become extinct, which means that all the heirs have definitively died out, or unless it is attainted—and various Scottish peerages have been attainted by reason of the

901
holders being Jacobites—the peerage is always vested in somebody. The peerage may be dormant, but it cannot be in abeyance, an expression which fell from Lord Molson. Abeyance is a concept which, as I understand it, is peculiar to baronies by Writ in England, which is a subject I would respectfully think very much more archaic and obscure than anything which appertains to a peerage of Scotland.
The result is that, the peerage being vested in someone, it always exists, but any succeeding peer can exercise it only on establishing his right to the title. One result of this is, of course, that when the right is ultimately established, with all those intervening heirs who may have existed (Viscounts or Earls as it may be) the claimant to this present Viscountcy of Oxfuird is not the third Viscount of Oxfuird, but the twelfth Viscount of Oxfuird, just as the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, whom I see is present today, having established his claim, became not the second Earl of Dundee, but the eleventh Earl.
Very often a succeeding Peer may easily establish his title, for example, where the last Peer was his father. It may be difficult, as where the last holder of the peerage was a remote kinsman, and it may also be difficult, as it was in the Viscount of Oxfuird's case, where the last holder of the title died a long time ago. But the principles governing the succession and the claim in all these cases are the same, and it would be difficult, I would suggest, to interfere with one particular claim without interfering with all.
As regards procedure for claiming, in a simple case the normal procedure is for the succeeding heir to meticulate the arms of the peerage with the Lord Lyon at his Court in Edinburgh. The Lord Lyon is a judge, his Court is a court of law, and his decisions may be appealed to the Court of Session, and thence to the House of Lords. But at all events, in all simple cases of succession to Scottish peerages, it is the procedure before the Lord Lyon which establishes the right. The arms having been meticulated by the Lyon, the Writ to Parliament follows automatically. But there may be complicated and difficult cases. Every application has to be served on the Lord Advocate and, if he thinks it appropriate,
902
he may require that a petition be addressed to the Crown, and then the matter comes before the Committee for Privileges, which is what happened in the Oxfuird case. The reason why the Oxfuird case was complicated was not so much because of the law, or because of a lapse of time, but because the matter had been brought before the Committee for Privileges in 1735 by an earlier claimant, and I think that I am right in saying that it was that circumstance which caused the present petition to the Crown to be presented by the claimant.
My Lords, the law on this problem is not an arcane one. It is entirely clear to those who are instructed and experienced in the law of Scotland about heritable property, and I suggest that it is a body of law which could not be repealed, as is suggested by the noble Lord, without upsetting the whole basis of Scots peerage law. It would be possible perhaps to introduce by Act of Parliament some form of prescription of peerages, a species of limitation, but that would be an exception to the basic principle of Scots law that heritable rights never prescribe. There is this consideration, too, my Lords: that having in view that every peerage not extinct or attainted is vested in someone, even though he does not at present receive a Writ to attend, to introduce this prescription would involve taking away vested rights, and I do not think that this is a principle which is readily accepted in any Act of Parliament, at least not without some compensation being provided for.
There is another consideration which arises in relation to the suggestion that such a prescription might be introduced; that is, that the Treaty and Act of Union of course was passed upon the faith of the continuance of that body of peerage law among other private laws of Scotland. Under Article 18 of the Treaty of Union it is provided that the laws of Scotland which concern private right are only to be altered by the United Kingdom Parliament for the,
"evident utility of the subjects within Scotland".
I do not suggest that that is a legal obstacle to any such act, but it is a matter which would appropriately be considered if the matter were ever to come seriously to reform.

903
I should say a few words about the matter of attainder. As I mentioned, there are a number of peerages of Scotland in attainder because the holders were Jacobites once upon a time. The procedure with these, as I understand it, is that the attainder may be lifted by the heir to the peerage obtaining a private Act of Parliament. The Sovereign, it is thought, would assent to such an Act, because when George IV visited Edinburgh in 1822 he promised Walter Scott that this would be done. There are some significant peerages in attainder. The most significant is that of Earl Marshal. Once upon a time there was an Earl Marshal of Scotland. He was attainted for being a Jacobite. The last Earl died about 1780, and there has been no Earl Marshal since. It would perhaps be sad, from some points of view, if the possibility of an Earl eventually emerging and being recognised in that great Office of Scotland should be permanently removed.
My Lords, it is perhaps desirable that the whole matter should be put in some kind of perspective numerically. Upon the Roll of the Peers of Scotland at the time of the Union there appeared 154 names; of these 29 peerages are now extinct. Those dormant, according to my information, number 19, and it is likely that eight of these are indeed extinct. So perhaps there are 11 dormant peerages that will not have to be seriously considered. There are nine attainted peerages. I do not guarantee the accuracy of these figures, my Lords, but they are I think reasonably so. Another matter to be kept in mind is that during this century there have been, to the best of my knowledge, only two Scottish peerages claimed before the Committee for Privileges. One is that of Dundee, which I have already mentioned, and the other is that of Oxfuird. So that is two claims in the course of nearly 80 years.
The matter of expense has been mentioned. I would respectfully suggest that the question of the expense has to be viewed in perspective in relation to the total costs of running your Lordships' House. I would suggest that it is not a fair yardstick to take a proportion of the salaries of the law Lords over a year, or even two and a half days. The proper
904
comparison, I would respectfully suggest, is to consider the time spent over the last 77 years on the two claims which arose during that period, in relation to the total time spent by the Lords of Appeal in their judicial duties.
When one is considering the matter of expense, also it is desirable to consider the possible expense of a Committee such as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has proposed, and how the cost of such a Committee—and we know what committees can be like these days—would compare with the cost of the likely claims to peerages over the next 80 years. Finally, if a public general Act were to be passed to deal with this matter, might it not be relevant to consider the cost of such a public general Act—the printing, and the time and the trouble—when that is related to the cost of the likely claims to peerages over the next 80 years? I detected in the speech of the noble Lord some feeling of condolence that I and my colleagues had to consider this particular matter. I should simply say that, so far as I personally was concerned. I found the hearing of this petition of the greatest interest from the point of view of the law, and also from the point of view of Scottish history and tradition.
3.30 p.m.
Lord HENLEY: My Lords, it is a very great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, on his maiden speech and his lucid and interesting description of Scottish peerage law. It was his advice and expertise and that of his noble colleague, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, which guided us who are neither lawyers, Scottish or otherwise, on the Committee. I always enjoy hearing lawyers speak. They are so clear, so lucid, and in spite of sometimes being long-winded they are so succinct. I hope we shall hear a great deal more of the noble Lord in this House and that he will not always be in Scotland.
As did the noble Lord, Lord Molson, I concur with the noble and learned law Lords who sat on the Committee, and I defer to their judgment. I am bound to say that I was surprised when they came to the decision they did and that they were unanimous. I felt that the whole case was riddled with uncertainties and that the uncertainties were such that I could

905
not find my way through them. In spite of what the noble Lord has just said about the technicalities of Scottish peerage law, I found it very difficult. But then I do not know the law, nor do I know the law of evidence so it is not for me to question their opinion on those grounds. Nor, indeed, do I question the opinion of the Committee in which I concurred at the time and in which I still concur and do not in any way repudiate.
Nevertheless, there are certain things that I feel ought to be said about the reviving of peerages which have been either dormant so long, as in this case, or indeed in abeyance, which this one is not. As both the noble Lords, Lord Molson and Lord Keith, told us, the system of devolution of Scottish peerages before the union is different from the way we deal with our own. I dare say it is no more absurd than the hereditary system as we practise it. The claim that we are debating today is not an hereditary one. There is not one drop of the original Peer's blood in the present claimant, so it is not in any sense hereditary. I can see the logic of this kind of system that prevailed in Scotland before 1707. The logic was that it was easier for a family to find the right man to promote its fortunes by that system than by the hereditary one. It was easier to do it that way than by primogeniture. Indeed, noble Lords will be only too well aware of Tennyson's famous line on primogeniture:
"The tenth transmitter of a foolish face".
Clearly that system led to abuses—indeed, what system does not? But were the abuses any worse under the Scottish system than they were under the English.
I should like to look at some of what have come to be regarded as scandalous appointments of the past, and I start with Pitt's peerages at the end of the 18th century. This time we are talking about Irish peerages. They were only Irish in a technical sense in that they enabled Pitt to reward his English friends without too much opposition from the existing Peerage (because they did not sit in your Lordships' House) and without too much public outrage. I can speak with some knowledge because I am one of Pitt's Irish peers. What were the qualifications to be such—or perhaps I should say what were the disqualifications? I cannot remember them all but I know that third-rate squires
906
was one of the categories regarded as scandalous. I am holding my own, so to speak.
Noble Lords will also be familiar with the remark attributed to George III:
"I cannot make you a gentleman but I will make you an Irish peer".
In Georges III's reign started the business of calling peerages out of abeyance and that reached its apogee in the first four years of Queen Victoria's reign. I know that we are not talking about abeyance but about dormancy of peerages, but what I am trying to establish is cognate. In the first four years of Queen Victoria's reign several baronies supposedly by writ—the noble Lord, Lord Keith, mentioned that—which in the words of J. H. Round, the eminent medievalist, historically speaking never existed, were called out of abeyance. This is what the editor of the Complete Peerage said about one of them—and may I quote:
"That an individual who represents an unknown fraction of a barony which never existed, a barony which even on the most favourable representation has been unheard of for five and a half centuries should be given the precedence of the beginning of the 14th century at the expense of most of the barons of the Realm, is an outrage which the House of Lords may be expected to resent".
That is pretty strong stuff. Disraeli poured ridicule upon it in Sybil, and may I read the passage out of Sybil written in 1845, after the scandals reached their maximum. This is Mr. Hatton speaking, the famous peerage lawyer of the Inner Temple. He explains here how he can make a peer, adding:
"You would like to be a peer. Well you are really Lord Vavaseur, but there is a difficulty in establishing your undoubted right, from the single-writ-of-summons difficulty. Your claim on the barony of Lovel is very good; I could recommend your pursuing it, did not another, more inviting still present itself. In a word, if you wish to be Lord Bardolph, I will undertake to make you so… will give you precedence over every peer on the roll, except three (and I made those) and it will not cost you a paltry £20,000 or £30,000".
I think those two quotations speak for themselves. I think the ridicule poured upon it by Disraeli stopped the scandal of the traffic in peerages for quite a bit. But it re-emerged in the early years of George V, Promotion of Peerage by Syndicate—again these are the words of the editor of the Complete Peerage. We follow that with scandalous appointments of Lloyd George and his go-between Maundy Gregory.

907
There is a story that some noble Lords may know. I cannot date it but it might be during the reign of Charles II who made Peeresses of so many of his mistresses. The story goes that a certain First Lord of the Treasury said of his successor who was reputed to be trying to emulate Charles II:
"It takes great courage to give your mistress a peerage; if I had done it my wife would have been furious".
He did not add that he had made his own wife's lover a peer. This is to show that the influence of women is just as bad as English men and Scottish men in scandalous appointments.
I will illustrate the contemporary scene, not with scandalous appointments but with a single scandalous disappointment. We have it on the authority of a well-known journalist that when he was asked why he was not given a peerage he said: "I cannot dance, I cannot sing, I cannot do imitations".
My Lords, the point I am trying to make is that, even though the peerage we are debating, revived from 10 generations ago or thereabouts, stands up to the evidence available, and although its succession is no more absurd, as I said before, than our hereditary successions, nor, indeed, is scandalous, nevertheless I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that it may possibly be that it is no longer in the public interest that this sort of traffic (I used that word before) in peerages should go on. There are still some—and the noble Lord, Lord Keith, referred to this—Scotch peerages, pre-1707, which might be subject to this same procedure, and there are no doubt many English baronies by writ in abeyance for many generations which could be called out. I wonder whether it is not time to end this business now.
3.41 p.m.
Lord FRASER of TULLYBELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was good enough to send me in advance a draft of what he was intending to say today, and I have had time to consider it. I should like, if I may, in disagreeing with him, to follow through the points which he raised, and briefly to say why, in my view, they are not points which should commend themselves to your Lordships.
908
In the first place, he referred to the pre-Union Scottish peerage law as enjoying a phantom existence and as coming into existence from the tomb to embarrass those who are now alive. I do not know about the noble Lord, Lord Molson, but so far as I am concerned it does not embarrass me in the least, and I do not see why it should do so.
If I may say so with great respect, I think that this really represents a fundamental misreading of the situation. The position is that there are now in existence a number of Scottish pre-Union peerages which are held by living, ascertained persons, and all the people who hold those peerages do so because of what was laid down or existed in the pre-Union Scottish period law. That law is actively in effect to this day. There are something over 100 holders of such peerages, and they hold those peerages by virtue of this law, which is in full vigour and effect. It is only very occasionally that a difficult question with regard to that law arises. One of them arose in the present, Oxfuird case; another one, or possibly one or two others, arose in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about 25 years ago. But, my Lords, any branch of the law which raises a difficult and awkward point for decision only once in 25 years is not doing too badly.
To pass to the next criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, he referred to the public expense involved. The main item of ascertained and public expense was about £5,600 for the taking of shorthand notes, printing and publishing. I understand that arrangements have been made, or are in course of being made, so that in future the proceedings of the Committee for Privileges when dealing with this sort of matter would not be printed. The main part of the £5,600 in this case was £5,000 for printing, so if printing were done away with in this connection the greater part of the expense would be saved.
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to the time spent on this case by the Law Officers and by some of the Law Lords who were sitting at the hearing. My Lords, unfortunately, that involved no extra expense to the public, because Law Lords and Law Officers are not paid overtime. All that happened, at the highest, was that the productivity of some of those persons was slightly increased.

909
I think that it would be unbecoming for me to suggest that our increased productivity was a great public benefit, but I believe that I may fairly say that it did no great public harm. I therefore suggest that that is really not a good reason for changing the law in this regard. However, if it were seriously felt that an undue expenditure of time by people who ought to be otherwise employed was involved in this, then I would suggest, as I think my noble and learned friend Lord Keith mentioned, that that could he dealt with by remitting the matter for inquiry to the Court of the Lord Lyon. Lyon already deals with uncontested claims to peerages raising no particular complications, and there have been at least two such cases within the last 30 or 40 years. Lyon disposed of them without difficulty. If it were desired to save expense and to save the time of this House, it could be done by remitting such matters to the Lord Lyon.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred to the suggestion that the archaic law in this matter might be repealed. I do not think he intended that in a technical sense, hut, of course, there is really no question of repealing anything. There is no Act of the Scottish Parliament and no single isolated piece of law which could be repealed which would make any difference here. After all, the validity of what was done in 1651 in the case of the Oxfuird peerage case, or in 1705—another important date in this case—under the then existing law is good or bad once and for all under that law, and nothing we could do now by repealing that law would make any difference to the legality or illegality of what was then done. There is really no question of repealing the law. What is wanted by the noble Lord, I think, is that the law should be changed in some retrospective way, and that seems to me to be a very dangerous and difficult exercise on which to embark.
Finally, my Lords, some reference was made to the Sumner Committee of 1926. In 1926, the Sumner Committee was dealing only with peerages which were in abeyance, and, as my noble and learned friend Lord Keith has mentioned. peerages in abeyance mean peerages to which there is no person known to be presently entitled. When a Peer dies leaving two or more daughters in England, in certain cases the peerage will go into abeyance
910
because there are co-heirs (or, as I would prefer to say, heirs portioners) no one of whom is entitled to the peerage. That was the problem that the Sumner Committee was dealing with; and it follows that when someone asks for a peerage to be called out of abeyance he is not demanding a right, he is asking the favour that, because he has arranged with the other people involved and interested in the peerage, it may be called out of abeyance. But the matter of a peerage which is dormant, such as the Oxfuird peerage, is entirely different. Unless the peerage is extinct altogether, there is some individual who is entitled to it as of right, and if he can assert his right then he is entitled to have his right sustained and to be summoned to sit in your Lordships' House. It is an entirely different position, therefore, between peerages in abeyance and peerages, such as this, which are dormant.
My Lords, there is one other rather important matter. The Sumner Committee, dealing with peerages in abeyance, was dealing with peerages based upon a writ of summons followed by attendance in Parliament. There was considerable doubt historically whether the people who had been summoned in that way to attend in Parliament were entitled to an hereditary peerage at all, and one of the main reasons for the Sumner Committee's recommendation was that they knew that, historically speaking, there was grave doubt whether these really were hereditary peerages which would entitle anyone, at the present day, to a seat in this House at all. That is certainly not the case with a peerage such as the Oxfuird peerage, which has been merely dormant.
It seems to me that to deprive a small group of persons—there cannot be more than, at the most, a dozen or so in the world who might bring forward a claim like this again—of what is already a vested right, if they are able to prove it, without compensation and without any very good reason would be entirely wrong. If this were done as part of a general reorganisation of the structure of your Lordships' House, then it might be acceptable and proper, but no such general reorganisation is contemplated in this matter; it would merely be for the convenience of a few people that a small number of persons who have a right should have it

911
taken away from them without compensation. That is a principle which, humbly, appears to me to be most objectionable, and for that reason I cannot avoid opposing the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Molson.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the Question before the House is, unless I am mistaken, that we agree with the report of the Committee. I am just wondering whether after these fascinating and learned speeches we are not in a position to agree to that Motion.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, I am quite willing not to speak if my noble and learned friend would prefer it. In any case, I think the course of the debate has made it possible for me to be very brief indeed. My noble friend Lord Molson, although he is not a Scotsman by birth, has been wise enough to acquire a very beautiful Scottish home in the southern extremities of the Border country where I have more than once had the privilege of staying as the guest of my noble friend. I know that he takes a very deep and wide interest in many Scottish affairs, including both agriculture and forestry. He told us a few minutes ago about the interest which he is now taking in the history and law affecting the Scottish peerage. I hope that he will continue in this interesting study because he will surely agree that he is not yet able to have acquired as much knowledge as he will in a few years' time.
I thought towards the end of his speech that, as the noble Lord on the Cross Benches has just pointed out, he was confusing the ancient baronies which go into abeyance with the dormancy of other peerages. There is no similarity whatever between the two. One is caused by the heirs being stripped, stretched, among a number of females who can, if they choose, make an agreement on which they may present a petition for the barony to be brought out of abeyance. That may or may not be granted. That has been limited to 100 years, and that is entirely different from claiming a right to an English or Scottish peerage which has not fallen into abeyance but which is dormant possibly owing to some historical injustice which, for various reasons, has not yet been put right Surely that is what our whole system of law is for. Surely it is
912
not in the interests of justice that we should compare the expense of administering one piece of justice with the importance of the subject itself. It is just as important, if justice is to be preserved in our society, that the most trivial wrongs should be redressed even at a high price; and it will not be at all a good thing or in the interests of justice that we should so arrange our legal affairs that very serious and important cases cost a great deal of money while unimportant ones cost very little.
My Lords, the whole subject is one which, in my submission rests on the execution of justice. When the Sovereign creates a peerage—if it is not a life peerage —the Sovereign usually accompanies the patent of peerage with a destination directing who and in what order shall he the successors to that peerage; and that is intended to last not for 100 years but for all time. If in the course of history the succession should be unjustly and wrongfully interfered with, then it may take a very long time to put it right for all kinds of reasons.
My Lords, in my own case when the Duke of Lauderdale was the ruler of Scotland and when he appropriated all our family estates and deprived us of everything, he tore the patent of the Earldom of Dundee and the Viscountcy of Dudhope out of the Great Seal Register and burnt them. And it takes an awfully long time—if you find a copy in the British Museum it may take years and years to prove, or to make sure that you will he able to convince a Committee of your Lordships' House, that that copy is a genuine one and that it correctly represents the original.
In the case of this peerage which your Lordships are now proving, one reason why it took such a terribly long time was that in 1735 an English Lord Chancellor got up and said that he had not the slightest idea of what was meant by, "heirs male whatsoever" in Scottish law. You really cannot blame the system if, owing to the ignorance of the Lord Chancellor, justice is still not done 40 or 50 years after the injustice has been perpetrated. As it is, we have had to wait another 240 years before justice has been done. Whatever the nature of the question may be, and however many mistakes Lord Chancellors may make, that must not be allowed to persuade us to countenance injustice.

913
As to the means of obtaining justice, my noble friend has suggested that we ought not to have a Committee for Privileges any longer. That is entirely a question for your Lordships to decide: if you think it is a waste of time to have such a Committee, I would say that probably most people in Scotland would be quite satisfied if cases of this kind were judged by the Lyon Court. Of course, that might mean if there were more than one claimant or if a disappointed single claimant should decide to appeal, that it would go on from the Lyon Court to the Court of Session and then possibly to the House of Lords—not the whole House but the House of Lords as a judicial Court of Appeal; not sitting as a Committee for Privileges but sitting with the Law Lords as Appeal Judges. That might happen and it might not save so very much time after all. But I think that, if any of your Lordships really feel that it is not justifiable to spend money on having a Committee for Privileges, justice could be done in this way through using the Lyon Court as a court of first instance.
But, in fact, I am not sure that the Committee which my noble friend Lord Molson suggested might not cost an awful lot more to set up and to do its work than the Committee for Privileges now costs and I think that it really ought not to be a question of money. It is a question of carrying out our duty, and seeing that, under our laws justice is done, and injustice is corrected.
4 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in the course of his speech that he was surprised that the Lords of Appeal who sat on the Committee for Privileges were unanimous. He will not be surprised to hear that that unanimity has now disappeared, not with the result of questioning the conclusions of that Committee, but in relation to some of the observations that have been made in the course of the debate today. Although I hope that it will not arouse the ire of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, some of the things that have been said call for an immediate reply, and consideration of the report of the Committee gives the opportunity for making some observations with regard thereto.
914
May I say first of all, regarding the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that claims to Scottish peerages should be dealt with and decided by the law of Lyon, that I would oppose that very strongly indeed. We are not here considering just the right to a title; this House has to consider admission to this House and membership of this House.
The Earl of DUNDEE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? I only suggested that as an alternative to the Committee for Privileges procedure if this House decided that that was not a good procedure to go on with.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I am utterly opposed to that alternative. I hope that I have made that clear. Before 1963 there were 16 representative Scottish Peers; now anyone admitted to the Scottish peerage becomes a Member of this House and is entitled to attend here. That to me makes a material change in the situation.
I do not agree with every word that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Molson; but I agree with him that this claim, which has succeeded, indicates that further consideration should be given to any future claims of this character. I would not suggest for one moment that the law pre-1707 should be repealed; that is unnecessary. In this particular case, the petitioner overcame all the difficulties that confronted him, and I congratulate him on that. Although there have been statements to the effect that this peerage was dormant and not extinct, for 272 years there has been no one who proved his title to it. One might have concluded from that lapse of time that it had become extinct. Of course it is true to say that if it is not extinct, it is dormant; but it is not true to say that in those 272 years it was vested in anyone, for there was no holder of that title.
The petitioner will be the third holder of the title. The second Viscount's daughter had a son named Robert. In this connection, I should like to correct something that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said. It was Robert who was allowed to vote at the election of a Scottish representative Peer, not the ancestor of the present petitioner. If the conclusion of this Committee is accepted

915
that vote should not have been given. Indeed, if the conclusion of this Committee had been accepted and the same material was before the Committee for Privileges in 1735, that Committee came to a wrong conclusion. As the noble Lord, Lord Molson, pointed out, the petitioner's claim is not as a descendant of the original Viscount; it is because he has descended from the original Viscount's great grandfather.
My Lords, he is entitled to succeed. His success may encourage others to put forward similar claims. We have been told about the number of Scottish peerages which might be claimed. There might also be English ones, claimed not because of descent from the great grandfather of the original Peer, but because of descent from an even earlier common ancestor. Is that really something that should go on? I venture to doubt whether it should. When we came to consider peerages in abeyance, to which reference has been made—and that doctrine about revival of abeyances applied only to baronies—after the Sumner Report I think it was this House that decided not to entertain claims for peerages which had been in abeyance for more than a hundred years. That meant that certainly English peerages which had been in abeyance could not have been revived after that time.
Surely it is very anomalous indeed, my Lords, that while you cannot revive a peerage which has been in abeyance for a hundred years, you can revive a viscountcy of which there has been no vested holder recognised as such for 272 years. I think that the time has come, bearing in mind that membership of this House is concerned—and I know there can be many arguments about the hereditary principle, but this is not the time to advance them—when this House should consider that the rule which has applied regarding abeyances, should be applied in relation to all other peerage claims; namely, that they should not be entertained after the lapse of a hundred years.
4.6 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I will speak very briefly in the light of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, properly said, that we should get on with this business. But I feel, listening to the whole case, that
916
here we almost have England versus Scotland. I do not want that situation. Only two people have come out in favour of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, the noble Lord himself and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne. As I understand the noble and learned Viscount. he has said that abeyance and dormancy should be the same. The fact is that they are not. The Scottish law is a different one to that of England. My Lords, to hit at the Scottish law is very dangerous, bearing in mind particularly the Act of Union. Had we made this change 40 years ago, the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, would not have been here at all, and we all should have been the poorer.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, talked about this matter on an expense basis. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, made an admirable maiden speech; and we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Tullybelton, that the situation is not what it seems, that they are going to get rid of the printing and that undoubtedly, if a Committee were to be set up as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that is a certain expense, whereas the other matters are uncertain and minimal. I hope that we can go ahead and accept the report and not follow up what the noble Lord. Lord Molson, has proposed.
4.8 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, acknowledging that the House wants to get on with other business, may I be permitted to say a few words. First, I should like to join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, on his maiden speech. He was a most distinguished colleague of mine at the Scottish Bar. I recall making my own maiden speech on a subject which hardly rivals this for popular interest: it was the Second Reading of the Electricity (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. I am happy to sec that he chose a subject with a greater popular appeal and has thus been assured of a larger and certainly appreciative audience.
Because of the erudition of the speeches to which we have listened, I am relieved from describing the ancient Scottish law of peerages. I want to say only a few

917
words about it: it is an amalgam first of the law of heritable or real property; secondly, of the law of inheritance and succession; and thirdly, of the special rules which relate only to peerages, and which reflect their creation by and direct links with the Sovereign. It is particularly in areas of law such as land law and succession that the law of Scotland is markedly different from that of other parts of the United Kingdom. I suggest it is important to bear this amalgam in mind when talking about repealing the ancient law.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, has likened the ancient Scots law of peerages to a ghost coming from the tomb to embarrass the living. If that is so, it is not the only ghost which is in the tomb and makes occasional sorties. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has illustrated, the English law of peerages is equally obscure and complex. Let me give just one statistic which we have not yet heard. In the last half-century your Lordships' Committee have been engaged in considering the merits of this type of claim (eight in all) for a total of 25½ days, including 14½ days spent on the Scottish cases. Your Lordships may well wonder whether an average of one half-day per year on all peerage claims, and less than one-third of a day per year on Scottish claims, justifies the time and expense of mounting now a thorough inquiry into the matter, to be followed presumably by legislation. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has suggested—and I acknowledge this—even today's debate costs time and money.
I have given these figures for a 50-year period, because that is the period which has elapsed since the Sumner Committee reported. As has been said, under Scots law a peerage does not fall into abeyance as it does in England. This is a case of a dormant peerage and, as several speakers have made clear, it therefore involves a question of vested right. Accordingly, any recommendations from any committee of inquiry set up to investigate what might he clone about the law and practice concerning claims to long-dormant Scottish peerages could well involve the termination or restriction of vested rights and, as such, could probably only be implemented by legislation. I shudder to think of the time and expense involved
918
in preparing and, indeed, debating such legislation.
Such an inquiry as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and such legislation as might ensue, dealing with these questions, not only would give rise to questions of considerable legal complexity and constitutional importance, but would also not easily be distinguished from an inquiry into the whole question of the constitutional future of the House of Lords, its powers and composition. This House does not require to deal with these questions at this time.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, there is no formal Motion before the House other than the Motion to approve the Committee's recommendation in the Oxfuird claim. Having regard to the real size of the problem over a period of many years, I am bound to say, the proposal put by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, looks a little like a sledgehammer designed to crack a nut. However, Ministers are sympathetic to the underlying concern. They will study the debate and any further initiatives that may arise after your Lordships have reflected upon this debate, and they will see what can be done to further and promote the object which they certainly share with the noble Lords, Lord Molson and Lord Henley, and with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne; namely, that of reducing the waste of time and expense involved in these unduly complex procedures.
Lord WILBERFORCE: My Lords, there being no opposition to the Motion, I respectfully commend it to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RENT BILL [H.L.]
4.14 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Adjustment, with respect to rates, of recoverable rent for statutory periods before registration]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the Amendment:
Page 32, line 40, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. The subsection to which it refers is not necessary and ought not to have appeared in the Bill. It s there in error and the Amendment emedies the error. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 46, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

PROTECTION FROM EVICTION BILL [H.L.]
4.16 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Service of notices]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 19, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
920
(".(3) In this section landlord ' includes—

(a) any person from time to time deriving title under the original landlord,

(b) in relation to any dwelling-house, any person other than the tenant who is or, but for Part VII of the Rent Act 1977 would be, entitled to possession of the dwelling-house, and

(c) any person who, under a restricted contract (within the meaning of the Rent Act 1977) grants to another the right to occupy the dwelling in question as a residence and any person directly or indirectly deriving title from the grantor").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is yet again a purely drafting Amendment. The Bill, as introduced, defines "landlord" by reference to the Rent Act 1968. That Act is itself now in the process of consolidation into the Rent Bill which is currently before your Lordships. It has therefore been decided to spell out the definition in full, which your Lordships may think to be more helpful. The definition proposed in this Amendment differs slightly from that contained in the Rent Act 1968 but is similar to that appearing in the new Rent Bill, so that in due course the same definition will apply in all the relevant legislation on this subject. I beg to move.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Consequential amendments]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 2 and 3:
Page 9, line 8, at end insert—
("County Courts Act 1959 (c. 22)
2. In section 94(1)(b) of the County Courts Act 1959, for ' Part III of the Rent Act 1965 ' substitute Part I of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977'.")
Page 9, line 14, at end insert—
("Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976 (c. 80)
4. In Schedule 5 to the Rent (Agriculture) Act 1976, in paragraph 10(2) for section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 ' substitute section 5 of the Protection from Eviction Act 1977'.")
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. These are both drafting Amendments: they update the two Statutes referred to by making reference to the present Bill instead of Acts, the relevant parts of which are to be repealed by this Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

CONTROL OF FOOD PREMISES (SCOTLAND) BILL
Report received.

TRANSPORT POLICY
4.20 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The Statement is as follows:
"In April last year my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment published a consultation document on transport policy. The House will recall how much that document owed to the late Anthony Crosland. Since the creation of the Department of Transport in September, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and I have had discussions with a wide range of organisations. The House debated the consultation document on 20th January.
"The Queen's Speech promised that the Government would bring forward proposals for developing a transport policy best suited to economic and social needs. Our main conclusions are set out in the White Paper which is presented today by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales and myself. I regret that, owing to an industrial dispute at Her Majesty's Stationery Office, printed copies are not yet available for right honourable and honourable Members, but typescripts are available in the Vote Office"—
and in our Printed Paper Office.
"In this Statement I cannot set out all the proposals in a document over 30,000 words in length. It may help the House, however, if I refer to some of the principal features.
922
"First, public transport. The maintenance of our public services is the White Paper's main concern. Expenditure in support of public transport will not be reduced, as had been proposed in the consultation document and in this year's Public Expenditure White Paper. The White Paper provides for support to local bus services to be maintained at present levels in real terms to sustain essential networks and moderate fare increases.
"Second, we intend to place more responsibility for planning and securing properly integrated local public transport on local authorities. They are in the best position to assess local needs and how to meet them. They, with the operators, are best able to co-ordinate the different modes in a practical way, taking into account the views of the consumer, of local industry and commerce and of the trade unions. But outside the metropolitan areas the present arrangements are inadequate. The Government will introduce legislation to require county councils in these areas to prepare local public transport plans.
"We attach particular importance to our proposals for the rural areas whose special problems we recognise. The new county public transport plans should give greater stability to conventional bus services and there will be increased support for them. In addition, the licensing system will be modified to allow for flexibility and innovation in meeting needs in the most cost-effective ways. We see scope for more self-help and more community buses, based on local initiative in the light of local conditions.
"Third, we provide for an increase, by 1980–81, of £25 million over present levels of expenditure on concessionary fares for the elderly, blind and disabled.
"Fourth, the White Paper marks out a central and continuing role for the railways, notably in long-distance passenger transport, in important commuter services, in the movement of bulk freight and in providing essential local services. There can be no question of imposing major cuts on the network. By concentrating on the tasks they do well, by increasing efficiency and productivity and by

923
skilful marketing, the Board, working together closely with the trade unions, can build an assured future for the railways. In the longer term it may be possible to look to higher levels of investment. Meanwhile, we shall give the Board more flexibility to deploy the available resources to best effect and agree rolling programmes for suitable investment.
"The Government have set two financial objectives for the railways; to contain, and then to reduce, subsidy to the revenue account for the operation of passenger services; and to eliminate any continuing requirement beyond this year for support to the other railway business. New arrangements are needed for setting targets for sectors of the business, but the Government have not set a specific financial objective for reducing subsidy to the London commuter services.
"National resources must go first-and-foremost to equip the railways to carry out those national tasks which they alone can perform, and where their contribution to the industrial strategy is the greatest. But the railways provide many local passenger services also, some carrying few passengers at high and increasing cost. We propose discussions with local government, the Railways Board and the unions on how best to involve local people in any necessary decisions on the future of such services and on how best to use resources to meet local needs.
"Finally, there is the level and nature of the road programme. The last 20 years have seen substantial improvements to the core of the national road system. For the future, there will be a new approach. The programme will be more selective, directed to meeting specific economic and environmental needs rather than to completing a national strategic network to a uniform standard throughout. For the next few years at least, expenditure will remain at about the reduced levels of the current year.
"The White Paper deals with many other matters which time does not allow me to describe in detail now. They include wider powers to control car parking in congested areas, while
924
recognising the importance of the private car as a means of transport; greater attention to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists; and measures to civilise the heavy lorry. However, some matters will be the subject of later statements—notably our proposals for road safety and the future role and structure of the National Freight Corporation, including the ownership of Freightliners.
"Transport policy must be directed towards economic growth and higher prosperity; ensuring for everyone a reasonable level of personal mobility; and minimising the harmful effects on the environment that result directly from the transport we use. It must take account of the conservation of energy and of land use planning. We have to meet these objectives within the resources of public expenditure which are available for transport. The Government's proposals make no claim on public expenditure beyond those set out in the Public Expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 6721).
"As the House knows, the transport picture is complex but there is a temptation to look at it in simple terms. In practice this is the position traditionally adopted by the many lobbies that bring pressure to bear in the making of policy. It is the task of Government to understand these conflicting interests and if possible to reconcile them. But, above all, transport is a service to people, industry and commerce.
"Well over a million people are employed in the transport industry, half a million of them in public passenger transport. They all have a responsibility, lesser or greater, for the public's experience of it and for helping to translate the proposals in this White Paper into everyday reality. In the years ahead transport planning must remain flexible if it is to match changing circumstances and meet real needs. In the meantime I hope that the House will welcome the White Paper as a positive and major contribution to the solution of transport problems."
4.30 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the

925
Statement of her right honourable friend. I should like straight away to congratulate the noble Baroness and the Government upon producing a Statement on their White Paper, which at first sight appears to be encouraging. It seems to contain positive thinking, something which for a long time we have needed in transport. I like the way that it is set out, and I shall look forward with very great interest to reading the document. I am particularly pleased to see that the intention is to give local authorities more responsibility, and also the Government's statement that local authorities are in the best position to know and assess their local needs. I find myself in such complete agreement that I wonder whether or not there will he a Labour/ Conservative pact!
The modification of the licensing system will be of tremendous help, especially in the rural areas. Is the noble Baroness able to say whether this means that more local authorities will be able to make use of the powers under the Experimental Areas Bill? I shall look forward to seeing more details about this in the document. I wonder also, slightly out loud, whether I hear the bells tolling in this Statement for the intended demise of the Traffic Commissioners. It was sad to hear that the ownership of Freightliner has not yet been dealt with. I wonder whether the noble Baroness is able to say when the Government's thinking will emerge on this question.
Regarding the railways, I am very pleased to hear about the Government's intentions. Both the railway staff and the public will welcome the statement that there will be no more major cuts. I take it that the Railways Board's commitment to reduce staff by natural wastage up to 1981 is still in being. However, both the public and the unions will be reassured that the Railways Board intend to contain and then to reduce subsidy to the revenue account while maintaining all these services and to eliminate any continuing requirement beyond this year to support other railway business. To make the railways more self-sufficient and efficient is what has been needed for a long time. Above all, the British Railways Board will be delighted that the Government are to give them the ability to undertake long term planning. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that there has been far too much stop and go on the railways. To a
926
certain extent one can adopt that policy over roads, but such a policy cannot be supported efficiently when it comes to railway planning; and it has been hard on the railways and the staff involved.
I should also like to congratulate the Government on their splendid statement in paragraph 14 regarding the Government's task being to understand the conflicting interests and to reconcile them, and, above all, on their statement that transport is a service to people, industry and commerce. I take that to imply that people, industry and commerce will have a choice and will use the form of transport best suited to their needs. Again I congratulate the Government, and I shall look forward very much to reading the White Paper.
Finally, I see no mention in the Statement of the National Transport Council. Again wonder whether or not the bells are tolling for it.
4.34 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that we also very much welcome the repetition of the Statement made in another place this afternoon by her right honourable friend, and that we are grateful for the information about the proposals contained in the document? The noble Baroness would not expect us to comment in detail on a White Paper which, as she has pointed out, is 30,000 words long. Obviously there must be a great deal of meat in the proposals which is not contained in the Statement.
Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness one or two questions. Is she aware that not only in this House but elsewhere there will be widespread welcome for the assurance that expenditure in support of public transport will not be reduced? We are grateful for that assurance. With regard to the proposal that county councils should prepare local public transport plans, while one is in favour of any measure that will give local people a greater say in the provision of their own transport services, does not the Minister consider that perhaps county councils are too local for this purpose and that it would be better if one could bring a regional element into the planning of integrated public transport services and that this might be achieved within the framework of the White Paper.

927
Is the Minister aware that everybody will also very much welcome the agreement on rolling programmes for investment in British Rail? Does she not agree that the failure of the Government to approve the investment programme of British Rail has been one of the major criticisms levelled at the transport policy which they have pursued until now? With regard to the subsidies for rail services, the Minister said that no specific financial objective had been set for reducing the subsidies in respect of the London commuter service. Could she give a broad indication of what this means in terms of increased fare levels for the London region commuters during 1977 and 1978.
On the question of the planning of a national road system and the new approach which is outlined in paragraph 11, does this mean that the aim, which has been followed until now, of completing a specific number of miles of motorway and trunk road network, has been abandoned in favour of the more flexible approach described here? Finally, the Minister spoke of civilising the heavy lorry, a phrase which some of us might think is about as meaningful as speaking about civilising the Dalek. Does the Minister agree that the operators of heavy lorries should now be made to conform with the law, which so many of them treat with the utmost contempt, and that they should be compelled to pay the track cost which they impose on the rest of the community, so that at least there is a greater element of fairness in competition between road and rail.
4.37 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am most grateful to the two noble Lords for their encouraging response to the Statement. We hoped that we had produced something which might meet with a general measure of agreement so that at a later stage we could get down to the nitty-gritty of working out the details. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, asked whether the licensing modifications would mean that more local authorities would be able to use the powers under the Experimental Areas Bill. The answer is, Yes, when we know the results of those experiments. When we know the results early next year, we
928
hope that we shall be able to suggest to other authorities where they may best try to use the results of those experiments in their areas. This does not exactly mean the end of the Traffic Commissioners; the bells are not tolling too loudly at the moment. We are aware of the problems, but we are also aware of their great knowledge of the licensing laws, and before we made any change in the licensing procedure we should want to hold further consultations and to take more soundings.
I cannot say when there will be the other Statement on Freightliners and on the future of the National Freight Corporation. We are looking at this matter at the moment, and when a decision is taken another Statement will be made to the House. So far as British Rail staff are concerned, it is anticipated that natural wastage will take care of the reductions, but now that we have this new framework we hope that the British Railways Board and the trade unions will work together and look at their industry. They have more flexibility now than they had before. If between them they can find better ways of achieving more productivity, then I am sure that the Government will welcome it.
The noble Lord commented on the fact that I said that transport is now a service. We have always felt that transport is a service. We believe that the proposals which are contained in the White Paper will mean that people, industry and commerce will have a wider choice as to which mode of transport is best suited to their purposes. On the question of the National Transport Council, Yes, I think that the bell has tolled. There was quite a lot of opposition both in your Lordships' House and in other places when the Consultative Document was put forward, and we are not now proposing a National Transport Council.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also welcomed the White Paper and referred to the involvement of local authorities. We believe that these responsibilities should be placed upon county councils who are the people at ground level who know what is wanted in their area. We have so many people who tell us that they could do better at ground level than people sitting at a desk in an ivory tower

929
in Whitehall or in Marsham Street. This will be a chance for the local authorities to prove that they know what is going on. It also means that local residents will be able to get at the members of the local authorities if they are not satisfied with the services they are getting and that they will be able to put local pressure on to them. We hope that there will be a much better service to the public as a result of the local authority involvement. I was delighted with the welcome given to the rolling programme for investment and the greater flexibility that we are giving to the British Railways Board to manage their own affairs.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also raised the question of the motorways and the trunk roads network. We realise that we need good roads in order to enable heavy traffic to move more smoothly. We now have over 1,400 miles of dual carriageways and some 1,360 miles of motorways, and while the new approach that we are taking in the White Paper does not mean the end of motorways or of other new roads, it does mean that there is a change of direction. While money is short, and while we have not got so much to invest in large motorway projects, we have to look at our priorities—industrial, regional, and indeed environmental.
We want to take those measures which will sort out the bottlenecks between factories and customers; that will take heavy lorries out of our towns and villages by means of more by-passes, by means of road widening and by putting in small stretches of dual carriageway. We want to deal with the situation on the spot rather than taking over acres and acres of land and cutting these vast motorways through the country. We shall have to take a closer look in future at the standards of the individual sections of road, and the case will have to be very good for building them up to motorway standards. It is a little early to say what the effects of the lower expenditure levels will be on individual schemes, but I can assure the noble Lord that we are looking at it, we hope in a practical and sympathetic way.
With regard to public transport in London and commuters, we accept that there is a special need in London and the South-East for the railways and for coaches to transport people into London.
930
The British Railways Board themselves do not anticipate any vast increases in fares. We think that British Rail, with the improvement in the provision of rolling stock, will be able to give a better service to commuters, with more flexibility, and will be able, we hope, to maintain their fares and improve their standards.
I am most grateful to noble Lords for the way in which they have received the document and in due course I look forward to hearing their comments, when they have had time to read 309 paragraphs and 30,000 words.
4.46 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Baroness has indicated that the Government envisage legislation on the subject of the greater involvement of local authorities in transport. The Press has given us to understand that the Cabinet has recently considered the legislative programme for next year. Is she in a position to say whether it is the present intention of the Government to introduce a Bill on this subject in the coming Session.
Baroness STEDMAN: Not at this stage, my Lords. All I can say is that once the White Paper has been launched —as it has now—we shall be starting consultations with the local authority associations. Then we shall have to take our chance with all the other things that come up as to whether we get in the Queen's Speech and into the legislative programme of next Session.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, we welcome the Statement that has been made, not least because we have had to wait a long time for it. The noble Baroness has indicated that there are some 30,000 words in the report, and it appears that we shall have to wait until we read it before we can digest the import of these important changes that are likely to take place.
I should like to congratulate the Government on at long last making the firm statement that transport is a service. Your Lordships will know that it is a favourite theme of mine on which I have been arguing for many years past. Looking at transport as a whole will certainly be in

931
the best interests of the nation. We also welcome the idea of the rolling programme which we have said for many years was a policy that ought to be adopted. I am convinced that in regard to both road and rail the rolling programme is something tangible that can be developed. To allow the Railways Board to have more freedom in deciding their priorities and the best way of dealing with their particular service I am sure is the right approach, and I congratulate the Government on this policy so far as we can understand it at the moment.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, while welcoming the Statement, I should like to refer to the point made by the noble Baroness as to the parking congestion in city centres. Would she not think it a good idea, and one which she might pass on to the Department, and indeed one which would produce more revenue to the Government, if a much higher car tax were to be imposed on those who wanted to use the centres of cities? One could then do without meter attendants. Of course it would not apply to doctors or such people who have to use a car.
I should like also to refer to the remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with regard to the "civilising" of heavy lorries. I am not with my Party on this because I have always maintained that certain loads over a certain distance—say, 150 miles and heavy goods such as coal —ought to be transported on the railways, and I should not be averse to subsidies in order to attain that.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, as everybody seems to be asking questions, I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, whether her Statement in any way means that the by-pass round Gosforth, outside Newcastle-on-Tyne, will be any nearer to reality.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, to deal first with the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, I should want notice of that because I am not able to deal with how the new proposals will affect present schemes. We know of the concern felt by the noble Baroness in this matter and I will keep my eye on it for her.
932
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Popplewell. Over the last two years I have sat here on many occasions and listened to him criticising what the Government were doing for the railways, so it was particularly pleasing to hear him welcome the suggestions that we were putting forward and to hear that we had at last been "converted", as he put it, to the idea that railways and transport generally is a service.
With regard to the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, all kinds of things need looking at. In these days we have to accept that most of the bulk long-distance traffic still travels by rail, but there are many difficulties when goods have to be unloaded and taken out into cities. Where goods can be taken from A to B in one step by rail, it is much easier to persuade people to use the railways. The railways are particularly well equipped for long distance bulk traffic. Indeed, they have increased the amount of coal which they carry and they are continuing to increase it.
Under our proposals, local authorities will have more powers for traffic management and the organisation and operation of car parking. We are particularly anxious also that local authorities and others should give some thought and attention to the needs of pedestrians and cyclists. We shall be issuing some instructions or advice on how authorities can, in our opinion, best approach the problems of pedestrianisation and also give cyclists greater safety within their areas. I shall certainly take the noble Lord's views back to my Secretary of State for his consideration.

INSURANCE BROKERS (REGISTRATION) BILL
4.50 p.m.
Lord BANKS: 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 Banks.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Viscount HOOD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Qualifications for registration]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment Nos. 1 to 4 en bloc:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("for a period of not less than five years")
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("authorised insurer") and insert ("insurance company, for a period of not less than five years")
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("for a period of not less than three years")
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("authorised insurer") and insert ("insurance company, for a period of not less than three years").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 en bloc. Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 replace references to an "authorised insurer" by references to an "insurance company". They also, together with Amendments Nos. 1 and 3, change the order of words in paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsection (1) to make the drafting consistent with other paragraphs in the subsection. The words "or by an authorised insurer" were added at the end of paragraph (e) and (f) as a result of an Amendment accepted in another place. On reflection, however, those words are not quite appropriate. They are obviously intended to mean any insurer doing business in the United Kingdom, but the phrase "authorised insurer" is in fact defined in Clause 29(1), in view of its use in Clause 12(3), to mean only insurers authorised to carry on liability or pecuniary loss insurance business. In those circumstances, the phrase "insurance company" expresses the intention of Clause 3(1) more accurately than "authorised insurer". For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord BANKS: The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, is unable to be here this afternoon and has asked me to speak on his behalf and on behalf of the Bill's Promoter in another place, Mr. John Page. I should begin by declaring an interest in that I am the director of a life and pension subsidiary of a firm of Lloyd's brokers.
I should like to make it clear that I accept this Amendment; I think that it is a more appropriate choice of words. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to make it clear at this point that I accept all the Amendments
934
that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, is to move on behalf of the Government. I am grateful to him and to his Department for their help with this Bill.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [List of bodies corporate carrying on business as insurance brokers]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 3, line 17, leave out from ("of") to ("to") in line 18 and insert ("all bodies corporate which are entitled under this section")
The noble Lord said: Subsection (1) at present requires the Council to keep a list of names, addresses and other particulars of bodies corporate that are,
"entitled under subsection (2) below to be enrolled therein".
However, bodies corporate may also become entitled to be enrolled in the list under subsection (4) as Lloyd's brokers. This Amendment is, therefore, necessary to ensure that the list includes Lloyd's brokers as well as those who qualify for enrolment under subsection (2). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Appeals against refusal to register or enroll]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Viscount Hood): If Amendment No. 6 is agreed, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 7.
Lord BANKS Lord BANKS moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 3, line 39, leave out from beginning to ("appeal") in line 42 and insert ("Before refusing an application for registration under section 3 of this Act or an application for enrolment under section 4 of this Act, the Council shall give the person by whom or the body corporate by which the application was made an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by a committee of the Council.
(1A) Where the Council refuse any such application, the Council shall, if so required by the person by whom or the body corporate by which the application was made within seven days from notification of the decision, serve on that person or body a statement of the reasons therefor.
(1B) A person or body corporate whose application is so refused may within twenty-eight days from—

935

(a) notification of the decision, or

(b) if a statement of reasons has been required under subsection (1A) above, service of the statement,").

The noble Lord said: The Bill provides for a right of appeal where an insurance broker or a body corporate is refused registration by the Insurance Brokers Registration Council. This is a right of appeal to the High Court, the Court of Session in Scotland, or a judge of the High Court of Justice in Northern Ireland. The Bill does not provide for an insurance broker or a body corporate to receive a statement of the reasons for a refusal of registration. There are precedents for this; for instance, the Housing Act 1974 provides no appeal of any kind against a refusal of the Housing Corporation to register a housing association. In another place, Mr. Freeson, speaking for the Government, discussing this matter on 16th May. 1974, said:
"I now come to the difficult question of confidentiality of information. Grounds for complaint about competence or incompetence, or the standards being maintained by a housing society or a housing association, may depend largely upon confidential information and understanding. It would be difficult to tackle those matters effectively by means of an appeal procedure."
Under the Solicitors' Act 1974, Section 3, there is no appeal against a decision of the Law Society to refuse to give an applicant a certificate that they are satisfied, inter alia, as to his character and his suitability to be a solicitor. Without such a certificate no one can be admitted as a solicitor.
Nevertheless, and in spite of the precedents, Clause 15(6) of the Bill before us provides that, where the name of an insurance broker or a body corporate is removed from the register or the list, that individual or body shall receive a statement of the Committee's reasons therefor. The Promoters of the Bill have become persuaded that it would be right to allow for a similar statement of reasons to be provided if requested when enrolment is refused, and this the Amendment does. The Amendment also provides that, before an application for enrolment is refused, an individual or body shall have the opportunity to appear before and to be heard by a committee of the Council.
It will be clear that this Amendment goes rather further than the Amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord
936
Selkirk, Amendment No. 7. I hope he will feel that this Amendment in fact achieves his aim. I feel that, together with the appeal to the High Court, it provides the applicant with every necessary safeguard. I beg to move.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I would very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for moving this Amendment on behalf of the Promoters and, I believe, in some sort of clandestine relationship with the Government. That gives it added strength, so I am given to understand. I put down an Amendment, which was shorter but not so fully spelled out as that of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, because I felt it was quite wrong that anyone should appeal to the court without knowing what was in any statement against him. I felt it was essential that, before anyone had an appeal to the court, he should know exactly what was being held against him.
Two types of people will come into the register: the first is the new entrant, and no particular difficulty arises in respect of the new entrant. But there is another type of person, somebody who claims that he has been an insurance broker perhaps for many years; if he fails to get on to the register for any reason, his way of living will be fundamentally affected. It may not necessarily take his job away from him, but he will no longer be entitled to call himself an insurance broker. That creates a monopoly of the words, "insurance broker". Therefore, it is very important that he should have a proper opportunity to answer any suggestions made against him, against the high integrity with which he conducts his business and against his good name. Certainly, if he goes to court, he should know exactly what it is that is held against him.
There are various things in life—such as rumour and stories—that can and cannot happen. It is fair that a man who may be personally affected by this should have the fullest opportunity to state his case. For that reason I warmly welcome the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and thank him very much for moving his Amendment.
Lord ORAM: I should like to indicate the Government's support of the Amendment which has been moved by the noble

937
Lord, Lord Banks, and welcome the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has indicated his support for the Amendment—presumably he is satisfied that his own will fall. Some concern has been voiced in the Press about the Council's ability to refuse to give an unsuccessful applicant for registration or enrolment its reasons for turning him down. In the Government's view it is right that the Council should give applicants for registration or enrolment a right to be heard before an application is refused and, if asked to do so, should tell the applicant the reasons for refusal. However, in our view it would not be sensible for such hearings and provision of reasons to be mandatory, as it may well often be in the interests of both parties to settle matters informally and without recourse to these procedures. I suggest that this Amendment would provide a useful balance between the rights of refused brokers and the vital need to operate a system of registration that is effective in keeping out unsuitable applicants.
I also accept that it would be useful to introduce time limits in respect of appeals to the court and requests for reasons for refusal. If cases dragged on indefinitely the system of registration would become very difficult to administer. Moreover, the limit of 28 days provided for in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, fits in with the provision of Clause 18(1) in relation to erasure from the register. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will be able to accept this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Before the noble Lord, Lord Banks, replies, perhaps I could ask a question. Would it not be rather difficult for appeals to be heard on this unless there is a definition of an "insurance broker" to which a refusal could be applicable? Of course, I am aware that in the White Paper the EEC definition has been accepted by the Promoters, but I should have thought that it was usual for such a definition to be included in a Bill dealing with this subject. After all, if it is the subject of a Directive it is usual—it may even be mandatory—to include in the legislation itself the substance of the Directive, if it is not already the law of the country. As it arises particularly out of this Amendment, with which I am wholly in agreement,
938
could this not be considered for the next stage of the Bill.
Lord BANKS: I can certainly undertake to consider very carefully the point which has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. However, I should not have thought that there would be any difficulty in hearing an appeal because the court would have to decide whether the person whose application had been turned down qualified in the very clear terms set out in the Bill. If he did so qualify in the view of the court the court could quash any refusal that had been made. I do not think that it presents a difficulty, but I shall certainly be happy to think further about it.
I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord on behalf of the Government for their support. I express the hope that the Committee will support the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHARIMAN of COMMITTEES: As a result of Amendment No. 6 being agreed, I cannot call Amendment No. 7.
5.5 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 7, leave out from ("fit") to end of line.
The noble Earl said: I have tabled this Amendment because in the Bill there are two points at which a decision on qualifications must be made by the Council. One is in this case when we admit applicants and the other occurs in Clause 18(1) where the names might be erased from the register or list. In the second case there is no limitation that the decision of the court is final, whereas in the first case there is a statement that the decision of the court—which I suppose must mean the court of first instance to which an individual or body may be taken—is final. There are two types of people. There is the new entrant, who I think causes no difficulty. The other is a man who may have been practising in this line of business for a considerable number of years and to all intents and purposes is in virtually the same position as the registered person whose name will be erased.
In the second part of the Bill—Clauses 13 to 18—a very careful and admirable procedure is laid down as to how erasure from the register should be carried out. The procedure in Clause 5 is very much more abbreviated but can still be regarded as just as serious to the man himself. He may have been engaged, or claims to be engaged, in a line of business and then is told that he cannot continue to work under the name under which he has worked for a very long time. In effect, that means that either his competence or his good name is brought into question. I recognise that in insurance a good name probably signifies a higher standard than in any other line of business. There is no other line of business where bona fides holds quite the same standard—and quite rightly—as it does there.
However, it cuts both ways. If a man is in that line of business then any scratch on his escutcheon—his name—is of extreme importance. Therefore, I wonder whether it would not be wise to omit these words and let the appeal run in the few cases where it marginally might happen. In remote cases it could be carried further instead of being confined finally to the court. I know there is the argument that this would drag matters out, and I quite appreciate that no one wants these things dragged out. There is also the argument that a person might be acting by legal aid. If he were, he would be struck at by Clause 11, which lays down that a broker must have a certain degree of financial resources. It is extremely improbable that any case could possibly be taken by legal aid.
If a man did pursue a case he must have something very determined or real to say, otherwise he would be involved in personal expenditure, which would be very unlikely. It is within the knowledge of the Committee that once in a while some case crops up. It, so to speak, hangs on the public conscience. I shall not mention names but I think that names will occur to most of your Lordships. It would happen rarely and if it was thought that something had gone wrong and an appeal had been prevented, it might linger in the public mind. It is rarely that it would happen, and it would only happen in the initial stages because at the end of two years this matter would be completely finished and then you would only deal
940
with new entrants, and it is inconceivable that any claim would come from new entrants in the same way.
This is a case of a man's good name. It is not a question of a big sum of money. But there is nothing dearer or more important to anybody than whether his own name stands high, and whether or not we should inhibit in any way his possibility of claiming examination of this in the highest quarter is something I should like the Committee to consider. I think that it would be right and proper to put this clause on the same basis as Clause 18. I guess that it would happen most likely in no cases, or in very few cases, but I should like your Lordships to consider this question because there is nothing more important than a man's good name, and nothing which he will struggle more to try and maintain. I beg to move.
5.12 p.m.
Lord BANKS: This Amendment, as the noble Earl has explained, would permit a further appeal from the High Court to the Court of Appeal and on to your Lordships' House sitting in its Judicial capacity. While I do not object to this I wonder whether it is necessary. It was felt that there must be a right of appeal; that it was necessary to have an outside check by an impartial body notwithstanding some precedents to the contrary, to which I have already referred. The High Court was chosen as an appropriate and acceptable body to do this. If the High Court confirm a decision of the Council, is not that sufficient? Is there perhaps a danger of making the enrolment procedure and registration procedure too cumbersome.
If we look at other professions we find in a wide variety of cases that there is an appeal to one body but to one body only; the decision of that body is conclusive. The Architects Registration Act 1938, Section 2, provides an appeal to a tribunal of appeal whose decision is final and conclusive; in the Medical Act 1956, Section 24, appeal lies to the PrivyCouncil, but there is no further appeal; in the Opticians Act 1958, Section 3, appeal lies to the Privy Council, but again no further appeal; in the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960, Section 3, the appeal lies to the council for professions supplementary to medicine, but there is no further appeal; in the Hearing Aid

941
Council Act 1968, Section 2, the appeal lies to the Disciplinary Committee of the Hearing Aid Council, but there is no further appeal; finally, in the Farriers (Registration) Act 1975, Section 9, the appeal lies to the disciplinary committee of the Farriers Registration Council, but there is no further appeal. In all these cases it has been felt that so long as you have one impartial body to which an appeal can be made from a decision against registration, that is sufficient.
It is important to point out—and indeed the noble Earl pointed this out—that somebody who is refused registration, or a body which is refused enrolment, is able to continue in business and can continue in exactly the same way as before but they must not use the title "insurance broker". It is not a question of their not being able to practise, as with other professions, if they are refused. Therefore, it seems to me that in view of that fact, and in view of these precedents, it would be sufficient to leave the appeal to the one body as provided for in the Bill, the High Court, but again I would be influenced by the feelings of the Committee.
Lord ORAM: I have listened carefully to the arguments put forward by the noble Earl and to the counter-arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has advanced. I feel that I should appeal to the noble Earl to consider withdrawing this Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, has indicated quite a number of precedents and the drafting of the Bill, as at present, would be in line with those precedents. I accept that one does not necessarily do now exactly as in other cases, but since there is this formidable list of precedents I think that that is something to be borne in mind.
Secondly, the right of appeal to a higher court, if granted, could be exercised by the Council, as well as the individual broker as the noble Earl had in mind, and such a right of appeal exercised by the Council might not be in the interests of the individual applicant. Those are points which I hope the noble Earl will take into account. Indeed, having carefully considered this matter we consider that the right of appeal to tile High Court is sensible and adequate, and it seems rather excessive to provide further rights of appeal to an insurance broker whose registration has been refused.
942
As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, we should bear in mind that the refusal means simply that the broker would not be allowed to use the reserved name "insurance broker"; it would not mean that he would be thrown out of business. The noble Earl, quite understandably, quoted the situation under Clause 18 in connection with erasures and suggested that here we should put it on all fours with Clause 18. Under Clause 18 there is no reference to the High Court's decision being final and therefore appeals could be taken further in that context. But we consider it to be reasonable that this right should be available in cases of erasure but not in cases of refusal to register.
It is a much more serious matter for a registered broker to be ejected from his profession than for registration to be refused at the outset. It is apparent from an examination of Clauses 3 to 5, and from comparing them with Clauses 15 to 20, that there are many differences of detail between the grounds and procedures for refusing registration or enrolment and those for erasing an already registered or enrolled broker, and I do not think that it is valid to expect uniformity of the appeals procedure in each case. Because erasure is an even more serious matter than initial refusal of registration, the procedures governing it are more fully elaborated in the Bill and in carrying them out arguments of law are much more likely to arise in those cases. I suggest that that is another valid reason for providing a fuller opportunity for appeal in the case of erasure than in the case of initial refusal. I believe in what I have said, and indeed in what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said, that there is a sufficient case for the noble Earl to consider again whether his Amendment is necessary. Having listened to what we have both said, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask a question on this? I take it that nothing would prevent—I do not think that there is anything in the Bill about this—a subsequent application for registration, for example, if in the first instance the Council decided that the reason for refusal was that the person had not yet had sufficient experience of the insurance industry.
Lord BANKS: There would be nothing to prevent a later application.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I moved this Amendment but I do not feel particularly strongly about it. If I may marginally differ from the noble Lord, Lord Oram, I think that there is not much difference between de-registering and taking the name away which a man has practised under for a long time. It is a very marginal distinction. However, I do not propose to press this, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Code of conduct]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 7, line 32, after ("up") insert ("and from time to time revise").
The noble Lord said: I should like at the same time to speak to Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 19. These are drafting Amendments to clarify the powers of the council under Clause 10 in relation to the amendment of the Code of Conduct. It is obviously right that the Council should have the power, indeed the duty, under Clause 10 to amend or revise the Code of Conduct as well as to draw it up initially. I am advised that the Interpretation Act provision which enables this to be left unsaid in the case of rules and regulations may not apply in the case of a statement as under Clause 10. These Amendments accordingly make it clear that the Council is to revise the Code of Conduct from time to time. Amendments Nos. 16, 17 and 19 provide consequentially for use of the same term, "revise", in the case of the Secretary of State's power to approve and amend the Code of Conduct under Clause 27(1) and (3).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.23 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 33, leave out from ("by") to end of line 35 and insert ("registered insurance brokers or enrolled bodies corporate, or by registered insurance brokers or enrolled bodies corporate in particular circumstances").
The noble Lord said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. These are essentially drafting Amendments to make it clear that the Code of Conduct and rules under Clauses 11 and 12 may make different provisions for different circumstances, for example for different classes of insurance business as well as for different descriptions of broker. The Amendments also make the wording of the three clauses more consistent in this respect. As at present drafted, there is provision for a certain degree of flexibility in the application of the rules under Clauses 10, 11 and 12. Clause 10(1) and Clause 11(7) provide that there may be different arrangements for different types of broker in respect of the Code of Conduct and the rules to be drawn up under Clause 11, including exemption from those rules. Clause 12(4)(h) provides only that the Council may specify circumstances in which insurance brokers may be exempted from the professional indemnity rules.
There may, however, be need for the Council to lay down different rules in respect of different circumstances under each of these three clauses. The Council might, for example, want in practice to make different rules under Clause 11 in respect of life business and general business, or it might want to lay down different requirements for professional indemnity insurance in respect of different classes of insurance business. Certainly it should have the flexibility to make such arrangements if it is decided that they are appropriate, and the Amendments would achieve that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Requirements for carrying on business]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 9, line 18, leave out from ("different") to ("from") in line 19 and insert ("circumstances, and may specify circumstances in which persons are exempt").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Compensation fund and professional indemnity]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 11, line 1, after ("may") insert ("make different provision for different circumstances, and may").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 12, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The Amendment which the noble Lord has tabled to this provision states that certain bodies are exempt from any of the rules. Frankly, I read that as meaning they are not subject to any of the rules at all. Would the noble Lord care to change that to "certain of the rules" in view of the fact that, as at present drafted, certain companies could say that they were exempted from observing any of the rules? I think a qualifying word is needed in respect of the word "any" because, as I say, it might give a firm or organisation which is an insurance broker the opportunity to say that it need not be subject to any rules whatever.
Lord BANKS: I will certainly give consideration to that point and I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising it.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Procedure of Disciplinary Committee]:
5.28 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 14, line 37, leave out ("such").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting correction. The word "such" is redundant; it adds nothing to the sense of the subsection because the proceedings in question are evidently "any proceedings" before the Disciplinary Committee.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
Page 15, line 31, after ("broker") insert ("or enrolled body corporate").
Page 15, line 34, after ("broker") insert ("or body corporate").
The noble Lord said: Under Clause 19(4)(e) the Council are to make rules requiring the Disciplinary Committee to record a finding of not guilty in the case of a registered insurance broker when the Committee judge an allegation of unprofessional conduct unproven. Since enrolled bodies corporate as well as individual registered brokers are liable to erasure under Clause 15(1)(b) on grounds of unprofessional conduct, Clause 19(4)(e) should also clearly apply to enrolled bodies corporate as well as to individual registered brokers, and these two drafting Amendments achieve this result.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask a question arising out of this matter, and which is also related to Clause 15, which provides that, where one of the directors of a body corporate is in default under the Bill, the body corporate as a whole may have its name erased. I wonder whether sufficient provision is made here, and clearly made, for enabling the disciplinary body to order that only the name of the director himself who is concerned should be erased. I quite understand that the Bill says that:
"…the Disciplinary Committee may, if they think fit…",
but what I am not quite clear about is whether this will be sufficiently clear to the court should the body corporate as a whole be ordered to be erased from the Bill and it seems to the court that only the individual director who was guilty should have his name erased. I wonder whether this is a point worth looking at, as it does not seem to be sufficiently explicit in Clauses 15, 18 and 19.
Lord BANKS: That, too, is a point which I should be very happy to consider further. Originally I had thought that the position was quite satisfactory, but now that the noble Lord has put a doubt in my mind I should like to have the opportunity to think about it further.
On Question, Amendments agree to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 26 agreed to
Clause 27 [Rules etc. made by Council]:
5.33 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 19, line 17, leave out ("and").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 19, line 18, after ("Act") insert ("or any revision of that statement made by the Council under that section").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 19, line 27, leave out ("amend") and insert ("vary or revoke").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment gives the Secretary of State power to "vary or revoke" rather than "amend" rules made under specified sections of the Bill. This, we suggest, is a clearer expression, and will chime in with the wording of Clause 28(1), which also refers to "varying or revoking" orders. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 19, line 28, leave out ("the statement drawn up") and insert ("revise the statement").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Orders]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendments Nos. 20 to 22:
Page 19, line 30, leave out ("Any") and insert ("The")
Page 19, line 33, at end insert—
("(1A) Any statutory instrument by which that power is exercised, except one containing an order under section 30(3) of this Act or any such order as is mentioned in subsection (2) below, shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
Page 19, leave out lines 40 to 43.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 22. Amendment No. 20 is a paving Amendment for Amendments No. 21 and 22. The latter two Amendments change the order of subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 28, and
948
amend the old subsection (3) to the effect that a commencement order made under Clause 30(3) should not be subject to any Parliamentary procedure. Such a procedure for a commencement order would be most unusual and unnecessary.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Interpretation]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 21, line 15, after ("an") insert ("enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and an").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment to ensure that subsection (2) of Clause 29 covers enactments of the Northern Ireland Parliament, as well as other kinds of enactments. There are references to the Companies Act (Northern Ireland) 1960 in Clause 11(4), and to the Loans Guarantee and Borrowing Regulation Act (Northern Ireland) 1946 in paragraph 8 of the Schedule. Therefore this Amendment is necessary, and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule [Constitution, etc. of Insurance Brokers Registration Council]:
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendments Nos. 24 and 25:
Page 22, line 8, leave out ("and")
Page 22, line 9, at end insert ("and a third shall be a person appearing to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of persons who are or may become policyholders of insurance companies.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 en bloc. These Amendments provide for one of the Secretary of State's nominees to the proposed Insurance Brokers' Registration Council to represent the interests of insurance consumers. Amendment No. 25 is the substantive Amendment, and the other Amendment paves the way for it. The Government have for some time been sympathetic to the idea that the interests of insurance consumers should be represented on the Council. One of the

949
main purposes of this Bill is, after all, to protect the interests of these consumers. We have now been able to consider carefully the points made in support of this proposition in another place. We have concluded that the Bill should specify that one of the Secretary of State's nominations should be from among those who seem to him to represent the interests of both existing and potential insurance policyholders. Hence this pair of Amendments. It is important to include the interests of potential policyholders, since it is frequently these, even more than actual policyholders, that call upon the services of insurance brokers. This is in response to a debate in another place. We have given careful consideration to it, and I am pleased to bring forward this proposition.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Schedule, as amended, shall be the Schedule to the Bill.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should like to ask a question on this matter. The Council is to consist of 12 persons chosen to represent registered insurance brokers, and five persons nominated by the Secretary of State. Is there, or should there not be, sonic provision for consultation with the British Insurance Brokers' Association as to those people who are to be nominated by the Secretary of State? The same would also apply to the person who is or may become a policy-holder of insurance companies. I do not know what the precedents are in other cases and I have no doubt that in all probability the Secretary of State would consult the Council or the British Insurance Brokers' Association. It seems to be desirable that there should be consultation in a case like this.
Lord BANKS: As the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, there would inevitably be consultation. I am not convinced that it is necessary lo write it into the Bill, but perhaps I could think further about that and consider whether the argument put forward by the noble Lord is strong enough to persuade me that it should be put in. In view of the fact that either the British Insurance Brokers' Association, initially, or later the registered insurance brokers, would be nominating or electing the majority of the persons on the Council, it is not so necessary to tie down the
950
Secretary of State to consultation. One would expect that, in the normal course of events, consultation would take place, and I should like to consider the matter further.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

RENTCHARGES BILL
5.41 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—The Lord Chancellor.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Application for apportionment]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
The noble and learned Lord said: In dealing with this Amendment it may be convenient for the Committee to discuss with it Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 which are linked with it. This is a technical matter arising from the Rentcharges Bill to which the House gave its approval on Second Reading. Under the provisions of Clause 4(1) and (4) of the Bill as they now stand, the owner of any land affected by a rentcharge which also affects land owned by other people can apply for an apportionment of his part of the rent-charge only if the rentcharge as a whole has already been equitably apportioned as between the other rent payers and himself. An equitable apportionment is defined in the Bill as any apportionment or exoneration of the rentcharge which is not binding on the rent owner. In effect, such an apportionment is a legally binding agreement between the rent payers under which

951
they are required to pay specified contributions towards the total amount of the rent charge.
The fact that the apportionment is known as an equitable one does not mean that the amounts are equal. Indeed, often they are not. This is one of those traps into which one is likely to fall in this difficult field. The amount to be paid by a landowner under an equitable apportionment is usually found in the deeds of his property. It would be very rare for the deeds of a property not to show an apportioned amount to be paid by the property owner. Up to now the view has been taken that if such a case did arise, the Department of the Environment in administering the procedures under the Bill should not become involved in deciding the amount that ought to be paid by the various landowners concerned —and when we speak of landowners in this context we are speaking normally of the owners of the parcel of land on which their house is built. The Bill as it stands requires the draft order for an apportionment to be in line with the equitable arrangement. Indeed, hitherto it has been considered that in the absence of an equitable apportionment an intending applicant for an apportionment order ought first to make an equitable arrangement with his fellow rent payers as to the proportion of the rentcharge each of them should pay.
This view was the subject of a good deal of adverse criticism in another place, and indeed it has to be admitted that the likelihood of a landowner obtaining the agreement of others to pay a portion of the rentcharge which they have not hitherto been paying is very remote. In the absence of any such arrangement, the unfortunate landowner of his bit of the land who has been called upon by the rent owner to pay the whole of the rentcharge can take proceedings in the courts against his neighbours to get their contributions. From the point of view of the landowner concerned, an action of that kind is not a very attractive one. The expense he would incur would probably be out of proportion to the amount of the contributions which might be forthcoming from others, and, quite apart from this, action taken by him would not exactly encourage good neighbourly relations. The alternative is for the landowner to take no
952
action, in which case he must continue to pay not only his own share of the rentcharge but what in effect ought to be the shares of the others, and he would have to do this for the remaining life of the rentcharge which could be anything up to 60 years bearing in mind curtailment in the present perpetuity provisions which are provided by Clause 3.
In all these circumstances, we think that although this sort of case may be rare, we ought nevertheless to provide for it and to amend the Bill to provide a procedure under which a rentpayer can apply for an apportionment even though an equitable apportionment does not exist. Under the Amendments, we propose that in cases where an application for an apportionment is made and an equitable apportionment does not exist, the Secretary of State will consider what the amount to be paid by the applicant should be and will include this in a draft order of apportionment.
The Bill currently provides for the draft order to be served only on the rentowner, but in the special cases covered by the Amendments copies of the draft order will also be served on all the owners of the land affected by the rentcharge. If he so wishes, the rentowner may in the usual way object to the order, and if the amount is £5 or less apply for it to be conditional upon redemption; but in the cases I have been describing, additionally an opportunity will be given to all the landowners concerned to make representations about the amount of the apportionment. When the Secretary of State has considered any objection or representations, he will decide whether to modify the draft order or to make it as it stands. When the order has been made, copies of it will be served on all the landowners concerned, who will, under the provisions of Clause 6, have the right, if they so wish, to appeal to the Lands Tribunal.
That is the general introduction to the Amendments, which I hope has been helpful, and, if it is convenient to the noble Baroness and to your Lordships to permit me to take this course, I will now deal briefly with each Amendment in turn. Amendment No. 1, which is to leave out subsection (4), removes the restrictive requirement that where a rentcharge affects land in more than one

953
ownership an application for apportionment to the Secretary of State can be made only where there is already an equitable apportionment; that is to say, an apportionment of the rent payer's liability which is not binding on the rent owner.
Amendment No. 2 is consequential on that Amendment. Amendment No. 3 is consequential on Amendment No. 1. It is to leave out words which would preclude the Secretary of State from making an order apportioning an overriding rentcharge when no equitable apportionment already exists. Amendment No. 4 inserts new subsections (1A) and (1B), which set out the nature of the amount of the apportionment which must be specified in the Secretary of State's draft order. The substantive change made by the Amendment is contained in the new subsection (1A) (b), which deals with the case where there is no existing equitable apportionment. In such case it is for the Secretary of State to specify the amount which he considers appropriate.
Amendment No. 5 amends subsection (2) by providing that, in cases where there is no existing equitable apportionment, copies of the draft apportionment order are to be served on the applicant and on all the other rentpayers, in addition to the rent owner himself. All the rentpayers will thus have an opportunity to make representations about the apportioned amount which the Secretary of State proposes to attribute to the applicant's land. Amendment No. 6 is a drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that the right of a rent owner to object to a draft apportionment order arises after service of the draft order on him or his agent. Amendment No. 7 inserts a new subsection (3A) and a new subsection (3B), and provides that, in the case of an overriding rentcharge where there is no equitable apportionment the rentpayers, within a specified period, may make representations in writing about the amount of the apportionment specified in the Secretary of State's draft order.
Amendment No. 8, which substitutes a new subsection for subsection (5), makes consequential provisions requiring the Secretary of State, in the case of an overriding rentcharge where there is no equitable apportionment, to take into account representations made by the rent-
954
payers. Amendment No. 9 is consequential on Amendment No. 8, and amends subsection (6) to insert appropriate references to the representations mentioned in Amendment No. 8. Finally, Amendment No. 10, which adds words to subsection (7), provides that, in the case of an overriding rentcharge where there is no equitable apportionment, copies of the apportionment order are to be served on the other rentpayers. I cannot claim that what I have said emerges, either to me or to your Lordships, with a blinding flash of clarity, but I fear it is the best that can do. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Baroness ELLES: We are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having shed what light he can on what is obviously a very murky subject. We on this side of the Committee certainly welcome these Amendments very much—I do not propose to deal with them in detail—as a vast improvement on the Bill as it stands, and we are particularly grateful that the Government took into account the arguments which were put forward in another place, and I think rather particularly forcibly by my honourable friend during the Committee stage there. As it stands, the Bill has the effect in subsection (4) of Clause 4 of making it impossible, where a rentcharge has not already been equitably apportioned and where the land is in more than one ownership, for anyone to apply for an apportionment.
It therefore seems that, if you are going to simplify procedures, that should be taken into account. In fact, as my honourable friend pointed out during the Committee stage in another place, when there has not already been any equitable apportionment would be just one of those sensible reasons for making an application. We therefore particularly welcome Amendment No. 1 and the consequential Amendments which follow. It is in fact also fair to say, I think, that it is precisely in cases of this kind where, even if there had been some kind of apportionment, it is very difficult to prove that there has been any agreement. So I reiterate that we welcome Amendments Nos. 1 to 10.
There is just one point I should like to raise, not to make any difficulties but just to make a comment. The noble and learned Lord referred to Amendment

955
No. 4, the new subsection (1A)(b), and said that it is for the Secretary of State to insert in the draft order an amount of apportionment which he considers appropriate. Could the noble and learned Lord perhaps say who would be making that assessment as to the value? Would it in fact be the district valuer, or would it be the Department? As I understand it from the discussions which took place in another place, the problem is that there is some feeling that the district valuer will take anything up to 12 months to do this kind of job, that it is rather a lengthy job to undertake. If it is to be the district valuer, which I understand it might be, is there any way to see that this time-lag is reduced specifically? Because it would seem that, if you are going to try to apply for an equitable apportionment, you want to get the thing done as quickly as possible, and I think one should like to feel that the Department, under the guidance of the Secretary, would be able to demand an urgent procedure in this case. That is the only other point I wish to raise; and, again, I say we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, both for his introduction and for the fact that the Government have seen fit to bring in these Amendments.
Lord FLETCHER: Perhaps I, too, may say how grateful I am to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for having put down these Amendments, which he discussed with me. I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness has said: I think they provide very considerable improvements to the Bill. As she will remember, those of us who discussed the matter on Second Reading were anxious to make sure that the procedure for dealing with apportionments was made as simple and expeditious as possible, because one of the great objects of this part of the Bill was to remove some of the technical difficulties which exist under the present arrangements for apportionments, which lead to what we regard as unnecessary expense, not only on the part of the payers of rentcharges but also on the part of those who receive rentcharges. I am sure, therefore, that the whole Committee will welcome the steps which have been taken to ensure that those people who enjoy these rentcharges—and there are some people who do—should in future be able to procure apportionment in the simplest possible form.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for her welcome to this Amendment. If I may say so, I am also grateful that the sponsor of this Bill arrived in the nick of time. I was beginning to wonder whether he was abandoning the by no means sinking ship, and I welcome him most warmly back to the task to which he so willingly and enthusiastically lent himself. The question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, was who was to do the work in relation to the valuation. It will, in fact, be the district valuer. I take the point that she has made that it ought not to take too long a time. The information I have is that 12 months is, indeed, a highly pessimistic figure and that it will take nothing like that amount of time. I will certainly draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the importance of there being no undue delay so that those concerned can be rid of this tiresome situation as soon as is reasonably practicable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 2, at end insert ("(if any)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Apportionment]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendments Nos. 3 to 10:
Page 4, line 28, leave out from ("rentcharge") to end of line 30.
Page 4, line 30, at end insert—
("(1A) If the application is made under section 4(1) above, the amount specified in the draft order as being that part of the rentcharge apportioned to the applicant's land shall be—

(a) the amount specified in the application as the amount equitably apportioned to that land; or

(b) where no amount has been equitably apportioned to that land, such amount as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(1B) If the application is made uder section 4(2) above, the amounts specified in the draft order as apportioned between the parts of the applicant's land specified in the application shall be those proposed in the application.")
Page 4, line 33, at end insert ("and, in a case falling within subsection (1A)(b) above, on such persons as appear to him to be the owners of the land affected by the rentcharge")
Page 4, line 34, leave out from beginning to ("under") and insert—
("(3) After service of a draft order on the rent owner or his agent.")
Page 5, line 5, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 and insert—
("(3A) Where a draft order is served under subsection (2) above on a person who is the owner of any land affected by the rentcharge, that person may, before the expiry of the period of 21 days beginning with the date on which the draft order is served (or such longer period, not exceeding the period of 42 days beginning with that date, as the Secretary of State may in a particular case allow), make representations to the Secretary of State concerning the apportionment specified in the draft order.
(3B) Any objection, application or representations under subsection (3) or (3A) above shall be made in writing.")
Page 5, line 11 leave out subsection (5) and insert—
("(5) The Secretary of State shall consider any objection duly made under subsection (3) above and any representations duly made under subsection (3A) above and, if he is satisfied that the draft order should be modified—

(a) in the case of an objection, in order to preserve for the rent owner sufficient security for each apportioned part of the rentcharge, or

(b) to take account of any such representations,

he shall make such modifications in the draft order as appear to him to be appropriate.")
Page 5, line 18, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—

("(a) the relevant period has expired without any objection or representation having been duly made, or

(b) an objection has, or any representations have, been duly made and the objection has, or, as the case may be, all the representations have, been considered by the Secretary of State,")

Page 5, line 35, at end insert ("and, in a case falling within subsection (1A)(b) above, on those other persons on whom copies of the draft order were served under subsection (2) above.")
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 [Appeal]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 5, line 40, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Where the applicant or the rent owner or, in a case falling within section 5(1A)(b) above, any other person who is the owner of any land affected by the rentcharge, is aggrieved by the terms of an apportionment order, he may appeal to the Lands Tribunal.")
The noble and learned Lord said: The effect of Amendment No. 11 is twofold. First, it extends the right of appeal against
958
an apportionment order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 5; secondly, it removes the time limit in subsection (1) of the clause for the making of an appeal and, by this means, leaves the time limit already contained in the Lands Tribunal Rules 1975 to operate on appeals under the clause.
Subsection (1) of the clause, in its present form, gives the applicant for apportionment and the rent owner the right to appeal against an apportionment order made by the Secretary of State under Clause 5. Under Clause 5, as amended, such an apportionment order may concern the applicant's fellow rentpayers as much as the applicant himself and the rent owner. Therefore, it seems desirable that, where the fellow rentpayers are affected, they, too, should be given the right of appeal against such an order. This is what the Amendment would achieve. Then, as I have said, the time limit of 28 days is already contained in the Lands Tribunal Rules of 1975 to operate on appeals under the clause. I beg to move.
Baroness ELLES: Once again, we thank the noble and learned Lord for proposing this Amendment. We think it a reasonable, logical step to take. It will certainly improve the procedures with regard to the redemption of rentcharges and the application of apportionment. It seems logical that a rentpayer who may be affected by an application should be informed. We, therefore, support this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: There is a correction to Amendment No. 12, to which I should call the Committee's attention. It should read" Page 16, line 27 ", not line 25".
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 12 (as corrected):
Page 16, line 27, leave out the entry in the third column and insert—
("In section 9, in subsections (1)(b) and (1A)(e), the words "and other rents".

959
In section 11(1) the words from"or other" to "Act 1925".
In Schedule 1, in paragraph 7(1)(c), the words "or other rents", in paragraph 7(2) the words "or other rent" and "or rent", and paragraph 8.")
The noble and learned Lord said: This group of Amendments in Amendment No. 12 comprises minor repeals which are consequential upon the provisions already made in the Bill in relation to the Leasehold Reform Act 1967. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

CONTROL OF OFFICE DEVELOPMENT BILL
6.6 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This short Bill provides for the continuation of the existing office development control powers, and for some minor, technical amendments to existing legislation.
The main purpose of the Bill is contained in Clause 1. This provides for the office development control powers—which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment at present exercises under Sections 73 to 86 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971—to continue for a further period of five years from 5th August, 1977. The effect of these powers is that within a designated area—and it is now only the South-East Region—all applications for planning permission for office development above a prescribed exemption limit need to be accompanied by an office development permit (or ODP as it is commonly called) which is obtained from the Secretary of State. I should mention straightaway that the scope of this control has recently been considerably relaxed because the exemption limit below which ODPs are not required has just been raised from 15,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft. In the past 55 per cent. of the applications
960
received have been for ODPs of under 30,000 sq. ft.; so, on that basis, it is safe to say that this particular control has been removed from over half of all new office development. I will explain later why it is necessary to keep control over the rest.
First, my Lords, I will recall the history of office development control which goes back to 1965, when its introduction was among the first actions of the Labour Government which came into Office the previous year. It was maintained throughout the period of that Government and when its powers expired in 1972, they were renewed by the then-Conservative Government. Office development control has, therefore, had the support of Governments of both major Parties. Nevertheless, the emphasis of the objectives has changed considerably over the period, reflecting not only the different priorities of the major Parties but changing circumstances as well. in 1965, the general aim was to promote the better distribution of employment in Great Britain and, in particular, to ease the severe congestion which then existed in Central London.
In 1972, the Conservative Government decided to renew the controls for a further five years, the objective of steering office development to the less favoured regions was discarded and it was argued that control should be used for a limited period to further the Strategic Plan for the South-East. The emphasis then was on concentrating growth within the South-East Region in a number of defined areas; but the effect was to reduce pressure in London and to divert employment to already prospering and growing centres round the periphery. However, with the return to power of the Labour Government in 1974, the emphasis on steering firms to the assisted areas was again rightly re-asserted. Throughout the whole period there has been a gradual raising of the 3,000 sq. ft. exemption limit to the present limit of 30,000 sq. ft. This means that the control now applies only to offices where more than 200 or more people are to be employed. The area subject to control has also varied from time to time; but since 1970 the control has applied, as now, to the whole of the South-East Region.
The time has now come again to consider whether powers for office development control should be once more

961
renewed. The Government are firmly of the opinion that they should continue. Congestion in Central London is no longer the problem that it was in the 'sixties; the number of people commuting into Central London and working there is now considerably reduced. But there are still not enough office employment opportunities outside the South-East—especially in the assisted areas—and the Government are as anxious as ever to correct this imbalance. We believe that office development control is an essential part of our efforts to achieve this.
First, in looking at applications for ODPs the Department is able to identify firms which, because they have no particular tie with the South-East, might be persuaded to move to an assisted area, and officials are able to have discussions with those firms about this. Parallel with this direct approach the office development permit system is one of three instruments which together have been helping to spread non-Governmental office employment more evenly over the country. The other two instruments are the advice which the Location of Offices Bureau gives to firms wishing to move, and the grants which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry pays firms who move their offices to locations in the assisted areas. There can be no doubt that this combination of control, advice and assistance has created the climate which has contributed greatly to the number of firms who have moved since 1965. We therefore believe it would be quite wrong to weaken that system by allowing the ODP control to lapse at a time when the employment needs of the assisted areas are greater than ever.
There is a further strong reason for keeping ODPs: to help inner city areas. Apart from London it will be the job of local authorities to ensure that firms which set up offices in their areas are located where they can provide the best employment opportunities. But in London, ODPs provide a direct form of control and, as the recent White Paper Policy for the Inner Cities makes clear, my right honourable friend intends to give permits for a limited number of speculative office buildings in London's inner urban areas, choosing schemes which will make a strong contribution to the regeneration of those areas which require improved job opportunities and physical renewal. I
962
must make it clear that in talking about the inner city in London I mean those inner areas outside Central London itself—largely the West End and the City—where conditions are very different and where there is no immediate need to encourage office growth.
For these reasons, the Government believe the ODP system should continue. However, my right honourable friend has decided to confine the operations of this control to where it matters—to the larger office developments of over 30,000 sq. ft. of floor space—and, as I have already stressed, the ODP exemption limit has recently been raised to this level. The larger developments are those most likely to be mobile, and so able to move to locations in the assisted areas, while the smaller developments tend to be more firmly rooted in their local economy. By allowing a greater number of small to medium projects to go ahead, the Government will give a much needed boost to the construction industry. of whose problems we are acutely aware.
This relaxation will also help the property market. When the economy picks up again it will be reasonable to expect an upturn in demand for new and better offices. But in view of the time involved between seeking an office development permit and completion of the building, we must act early if we are to avoid the danger of the supply of new offices lagging behind demand, with a consequent inflationary effect upon rents. The situation will require continuous monitoring which will be done.
I should like to take this opportunity to clear up a misunderstanding which has arisen in some quarters. The recent relaxations in office development control system, which I have just outlined, in no way detract from the existing powers of local authorities to control developments in their areas through the Planning Acts. The granting of an ODP—or exemption from the ODP requirement—most certainly does not mean that a developer has been given carte blanche to build an office block on a particular site. If the local planning authority are opposed to it, then they can refuse planning permission in the normal way. There is no presumption that because an ODP has been granted, planning permission will automatically follow.

963
Apart from these carefully measured relaxations, the control will continue as at present: namely, ODPs are available only to provide offices for firms which can demonstrate that they have a tie with the area. In applying the control in the South-East Region outside London, the Government must make sure that the needs of other areas—the assisted areas and the inner cities—are taken properly into account; and also that the development of employment opportunities does not outrun the general development of the economy.
So much for Clause 1 and the new policies we are pursuing. The remaining clauses of the Bill will not detain us long. They provide for some minor, technical amendments to the existing legislation. Clause 2 simply makes it possible to provide that the floorspace exemption limit for office development permits is expressed in terms of square metres or in terms of square feet.
Clause 3 remedies a defect in the existing statutory provisions. It provides that an order made by the Secretary of State to exclude any area from control shall be subject to the proper Parliamentary procedure. Noble Lords will, I am sure, welcome this proposal for greater Parliamentary control over the Executive. Clause 4 also remedies a defect in the existing statutory provisions. It relates only to local authority development. At present, there are exceptional circumstances in which local authorities in the controlled area can develop offices without getting a permit. The purpose of this clause is to close that loophole, and put them on the same footing as other developers.
My Lords, having now explained the purpose of this Bill, its fairly short contents and the new relaxed context in which it is set, I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill now be read 2a.—(Baroness Birk.)
6.17 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the Bill and also explaining the Government's aims in introducing it. The way in which the noble Baroness explained the history of office development
964
control, and the largely bipartisan approach which greeted its reception in 1965, is one which is a background upon which we can build. But I would, even at this early stage in the development of my argument, say that from this side of the House we believe the whole of this Bill to be unnecessary. I will develop my theme upon that.
This Bill's main aim, as your Lordships have heard, is to extend those powers which were accorded to it in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, Sections 73 to 86, for a further five years starting from 5th August 1977. Little is given away in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill, but I think that the Government might have informed their avid readers of a number of facts about the cost of staff and what is taking place. At the foot of the first page, we are assured:
"The effect of the Bill will be to continue the cost of staff for administering the provisions. estimated at £128,000 a year".
We understand that there are 12 on the staff at the present moment; and we further understand that the current number of applications are such that the cost per application is approximately £300.
The Government's intention is to increase the threshold from 15,000 square feet to 30,000 sq. ft. Therefore there is a basic assumption that the number of applications will be substantially reduced. But, my Lords, let us get down to the heart of it. What is an ODP? It is a licence, a permit, that grants a developer permission to go to a local authority and go through the usual processes of a planning application for an office building. But there is much more to it than that because the applicant has to satisfy the Department of the Environment that nowhere else outside the controlled area will do. That is really the machinery set up in Sections 74 to 86 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. In practical terms, this means an elaborate and vastly expensive operation.
In another place, the situation concerning the Midland Bank was referred to and I believe that, for the purposes of the Record it would interest your Lordships to know what took place. The Midland Bank made a proposal for 1,500 of its staff. They made the application and went through the procedures. They were

965
granted permission on the basis that a move would take place to a situation outside London. They considered no less than 750 other locations and eventually settled upon Sheffield. There, I understand, the Midland Bank are currently locating that particular group of office staff.
I do not believe that the Government are fully apprised of the very great difficulty experienced by firms if they are obliged to follow this procedure, even though the threshold has been raised from 15,000 sq. ft. to 30,000 sq. ft. Further, it is not possible for a developer to apply for an office space in blank: in other words, the named user in the particular case I quoted—the Midland Bank—had to apply for a quite specific location in a custom-built office block.
There are four categories of areas of control and the noble Baroness has referred to them. Broadly they lie in London and the South-East, but if we relate them to London itself they are the City of London, the rest of Central London, the inner suburbs and the outer suburbs. So the Government have rested their plans very firmly on three pillars. The noble Baroness explained that they were the office development permit, the Location of Offices Bureau—and, in parenthesis, I should like to say from this side of the House that we welcome most warmly the latter's continuance as a free advice service and consider that they have given that free advice service in a most valuable way for several years—and the incentive scheme to which the noble Baroness referred, under which a grant of £800 per employee moved out of London is permitted by the Industry Act 1972.
But we believe that the policy of the Government has changed and with it should change the office development permit. I must now refer to the recently-published Command Paper, Policy. for the Inner Cities, because that brings into line the whole of the Government's present policy. I should like, if I may, to indulge in a quotation. It is only brief but I think it is relevant. I quote from paragraph 56, page 13, of the White Paper:
"The functions of the Location of Offices Bureau have been reviewed and part of its new role will be to give particular attention to the promotion of office employment in inner urban areas, including London. Where firms are con
966
sidering moving, the local planning authority will be able to steer them towards inner city locations".
I believe the noble Baroness referred to them, and of course it is a complete change of policy. If we look at this a little further, we see what a fundamental change is involved because, to my mind, one of the most interesting Statements made by the Government on planning this year was by an experienced Minister, Mr. Robert Mellish. He related a very interesting fact to the other place on 14th January at column 1828 in volume No. 923/924. He said this, and I will quote his exact words:
"When I was appointed a junior Minister with responsibility for London housing by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) in 1964, we received the advice, which had also been given to the previous Conservative Government, that at all costs London had to be denuded of population and industry. We were told that it was growing fat and bloated and that the other regions were suffering as a consequence".
To continue the quotation:
"Foolishly enough, I believed it. I took the advice of those great planners. For many months I spent much time urging industry and people to leave London.
"Looking back now, I realise that it was about the worst advice that any Government were ever given".
My Lords, that was the Department in its wisdom advising the Government of the day. I think it is very easy, with hindsight, to see what would happen. Nevertheless, surely the best possible thing today would be for the Government to consider the errors of the past and take them into account in their new policy—which so far as the inner city areas are concerned, we welcome—and therefore, as a consequence, to abolish the ODP.
The story did not end in January with that statement being made in another place by the right honourable friend of the noble Baroness. We had also a very interesting debate here in your Lordships' House on 31st March of this year on a Motion of my noble friend Lord Sandford on four studies of inner city areas. We were much gratified that a few days later, on 6th April, the Secretary of State for the Environment made a Statement. That Statement is of very great interest because it relates to this specific problem, and I should like to quote just two sentences from it, which appear on 6th April in column 1227 of the Official Report of another place. The right honourable gentleman said this:

967
"A new direction is now needed for our urban policies. We must check and, where possible, halt the decline of the inner areas. … Above all, we have to shift the emphasis of Government policy and bring about changes in the attitudes of local authorities, of industry and of institutions".
We certainly would not quarrel with many of those words, because the Secretary of State is looking in those sentences for a new direction. Unfortunately, the direction chosen is the old direction. He has returned to the policy of the ODP and the IDC, which we are not specifically discussing this afternoon. But he has foreshadowed in that Statement the need for a new look and has followed it up with a return to the original policies.
I think the most important remark we can make from this side of the House is that there is a conflict of logic between the need at the present time for all the things mentioned by the noble Baroness in her closing remarks—that is, to ensure that when the economy starts to reflate there should be enough office space and office accommodation. We are very much aware that there are empty office buildings and indeed there will always be empty office buildings in certain places. The original legislation arose out of one very famous, not to say notorious, office building; namely, Centre Point. All parties were agreed that this was something which at all costs should not be repeated.
Nevertheless, there is a very significant fact here which was pointed out most particularly by the Greater London Council in a statement of the 12th October last. The Greater London Council at that time was controlled by the Party opposite, and I quote from their resolution:
"That representation be made to the Secretary of State for the Environment, as follows:

"1. That the Office Development Permit system now be dropped and in any event should not be renewed when the present powers expire in August 1977.

"2. That if, not withstanding the Council's representations to the contrary, the control is to be continued, then it should be limited to developments over 100,000 sq. ft."

In parenthesis, I should say that the Government have acknowledged the need only for varying the threshold up to 30,000 sq. ft. and they have not nearly matched the proposals of the GLC:
"3.… given the changed circumstances since the setting up of the Location of Offices Bureau, the fact that the Greater London
968
Council is responsible in its strategic planning role for the guidance of office development in London, and that it had also stated in its land policy statement … its intention to use the Act to further its objectives under those policies serious consideration should be given to the need for a body such as the Location of Offices Bureau so far as London is concerned, at least with its present functions".
I do not think there is very much doubt that the continuance of the Location of Offices Bureau is welcomed, but the permits most emphatically are not.
Let us look a little more closely at the present comparison with our European partners, because this is surely of great significance, and let us examine the cost of average London office lettings in 1977. Figures have been quoted with some assurance in another place, and I have not been able to find better ones. The figures show rents of between £50 and £160 per square metre in London, compared with £36 to £47 per square metre in Brussels, £37 to £56 per square metre in Germany, approximately £46 in Amsterdam and between £16 and £44 in Milan. It is not surprising that these figures very much enter into companies' thinking when they are considering the location of branch and other offices in Europe. After all, when we are thinking of trading and merchandising, insurance, advertising, banking and all those other services which we associate with our invisible exports, it is surely very important to consider Continental rent levels. When one is considering where companies' subsidiaries, or indeed head offices, are to be located in the future, those figures should be taken into account.
Far from creating further employment in this country, it is quite possible that when a company is considering the situation it will say, "The Government have continued the office development permit system. Should we not look elsewhere? Where are our best interests likely to lie so far as transport and so on are concerned? "Clearly, Amsterdam is one of the nearer locations; but undoubtedly Milan, and even Turin, will hold considerable attractions to companies wishing to set up office on the Continent. I believe that the Government have mistakenly chosen to perpetuate a system which relates to the middle 1960s. We acknowledge that it was a bipartisan approach at that time. We further acknowledge that it was necessary to

969
continue it for a number of years. But written into the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 was a time scale, and the cut-out is only a matter of four weeks away. This is the time to allow the Act to operate, and for the cut-out to serve its purpose.
6.35 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene very briefly and, first, apologise for not putting my name down to speak. I should like to support my noble friend in what he has said, and to make three brief points to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. First, it seems to those who have read the Bill that it is drafted with considerable laxity. If one examines it, one finds that it does not refer to what the noble Baroness said, which was the whole point of her argument, that the threshold for the South-East of England has now risen from 3,000 sq. ft., as it was in 1965, to 30,000 sq. ft. today. All the Bill does is to repeat in Clause 2 the words of the 1971 Act, and to mention the term "3,000 square feet". It then goes on to say, even more confusingly, that for "square feet" one should read "square metres". Square metres are a long way away from square feet and I should like to ask the noble Baroness what is the calculation in metres that we should all now know about. How many square metres do 30,000 sq. ft. represent? I should also like to ask why a Bill such as this, which is very important for those who have to operate it, should be drafted in this extraordinary manner, which is so unclear.
Secondly, I should like to ask how the criteria for office development permits now operate. Have they changed from the early days in 1965? The noble Baroness rightly said that, having obtained an ODP, it was by no means certain that there would be planning consent. I should like to ask why the South-East area cannot have the same control by the planners, particularly local planners, as the majority of the country, and why there should be interference from this body. I think that the noble Baroness's case for introducing this legislation is very weak, as my noble friend indicated. I should also like to ask her whether she can confirm my noble friend's figure of £300 for an application. It seems extremely high, and if my noble friend is
970
accurate, as he so often is, it will be very worrying.
Finally, I should like to ask what is happening to new office development in the South-East at the present time. believe—and I am likely to be very wrong —that there is very little new office development going on, because we are only just recovering from all the uncertainty of hank rate and the new development land tax, with its consequences. I should like to ask how many new office developments over 30,000 sq. ft. the Government anticipate during the next year. I suggest that even in the South-East of England the number will be very small. If it really is small, then I would ask the noble Baroness to think again about whether this legislation is necessary.
6.38 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, began with his point about the Midland Bank. I was a little surprised about that, because although the Midland Bank may have considered 750 other locations what they did not do was apply for an office development permit. What the noble Lord has done is to take the number that they considered for their own purposes, and to think that it was in aid of an ODP. If I may say so, it was an understandable mistake. The noble Lord referred to what his honourable friend said in the other place. What he said was:
"Before it moved its 1,500 employees to Sheffield, the Midland Bank considered as possibilities 750 cities and towns. That is what has to be done by those who apply for an ODP." [Official Report, Commons, 17/5/77; col. 359.]
What he was doing was taking that as an analogy, but, as I understand it, the Midland Bank did not apply for an ODP. He was taking that as a case which they handled themselves, and was saying that that is the kind of practice which will have to be followed by people applying for an ODP. Perhaps we could get that point out of the way. The noble Lord is quite right about the cost. It is true that it involves a staff of 12 or 13 people. In view of the fact that over 55 per cent. of the applications were in the range of the new extended office floor allowance, we have already said that if the applications go down we shall reduce that number by half; so it would he either six or six

971
and a half people, according to whether it is 12 or 13 now.
The noble Lord made a rather large point regarding the GLC. Whichever Party is controlling the GLC, it is not surprising that it should want control for London to be stopped. This is understandable and quite the proper way for the GLC to act on behalf of London. Probably it would be asking too much of them to show altruism in assisting the Government with their assisted area policy when they have their own problems. May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that I said that in London the ODPs provide a direct form of control. Also, I referred to the White Paper on Policy for the Inner Cities, and pointed out that it makes it clear that my right honourable friend intends to give permits for a limited number of speculative office buildings in London's inner urban areas, choosing schemes which will make a strong contribution to the regeneration of those areas which require improved job opportunities and physical renewal. Then I made it clear that there is a difference between the West End and the City and the other inner areas which, although not assisted areas, have their problems. Those problems are being taken care of, so far as it is possible for us to do so.
It is perfectly true that the level of office rents is somewhat above Continental limits, but there are all kinds of reasons for this. It is also true that London is still the world's capital in terms of many commercial and banking enterprises. Having said that, the level of office rents cannot be laid at the door of office controls alone. We all know that there are many empty offices in London. One of the objects of continuing this control is to cut down on the building of offices which are then not used, something which I am sure we must all abhor. This is no good to anybody. We do not want to be dominated by a whole series of Centre Points.
By extending the exemption limits and relaxing them considerably in this Bill, the Government are keeping control, which is important at present, but making it a very much looser form of control. They are making it far easier for the smaller office developments either
972
to stay here or to go elsewhere. However, as I have said, the Government are also making it possible in this way for the larger operations to be encouraged and persuaded to move to the assisted areas. That is the policy and why we want to do it, and that is the effect of it.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said that he thought the Bill was drafted with some laxity. I do not think that is so. I believe that the noble Earl is being unnecessarily unfair to Parliamentary counsel. As I understand it, Clause 1 makes it quite clear that the control of office development, in the same way as it was introduced on 5th August 1965, will continue. The fact that it is couched in Parliamentary and legalistic language does not alter its substance, which is the continuance in force of provisions relating to the control of office development. Clause 2 explains the increase in the exemption limit, and 30,000 feet is roughly the equivalent of 3,000 square feet, which is also contained in the Bill. That is how one translates the amounts. Very often I am the first person to knock any lack of clarity in a Bill, but this Bill makes the point absolutely clear. It refers to other relevant Acts, which is the normal practice, and it is quite right that it should do so. My noble friend tells me that I referred to square feet. If I mentioned square feet it was a mistake; I meant square metres.
The noble Earl also asked about what is happening regarding office development in the South-East. One of the purposes of the Bill is to try to discourage office development in areas where it is not needed. If the noble Earl is asking me whether I can give him the figures for the South-East, I am afraid that I cannot; I shall have to write to him.
One can go on arguing about this, I agree, for a long time. However, the point is that it is necessary that this control should be continued. My right honourable and honourable friends in another place consider this to be so as well. Office development permits are a quite different matter from planning permission. Office development permits are part of regional policy, whereas planning permission depends on a number of other factors as well. In the case of office development permits, the question is

973
whether a particular firm should be granted a permit to build an office. This is done entirely on the basis of the need in the area. There is also the question of employment, with which we are very concerned. These factors are quite different from the considerations which are taken into account when one asks for planning permission. I stress this only to underline, so that there will be no confusion, that the two things go together—that if you obtain an ODP you do not automatically obtain planning permission. I want this to be quite clear so that there can be no mistake about it.
I do not believe that, single-handed, office development control will bring about the balance we need in the assisted areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, very clearly put it and appreciates, this measure is one of three instruments of policy. I was delighted to hear his tribute to the Location of Offices Bureau. With a staff of about 15 people, this bureau gives an enormously wide spread of advice, help and information. That bureau also wants the control to be renewed so that it can play a part in helping to bring about the revitalisation of the inner urban areas of London. I believe I have already explained that point.
I do not like controls if they are unnecessary. However, I have spoken to a number of people who I am sure—although they do not sit in this House or in the other place—vote for the noble Lord's Party and who believe that in the present circumstances it is quite right to have controls, although they are delighted that they have been relaxed to the extent that they have. They feel that this relaxation meets the point.
I believe that I have answered the main points which have been raised by those sitting on the Benches opposite. I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to your Lordships and asking that it he given a Second Reacting.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

VAGRANCY AND STREET OFFENCES REPORT
6.50 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they
974
intend to take to implement the report of the Home Office Working Party on Vagrancy and Street Offences. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity to debate this important Green Paper, the Report of the Working Party on Vagrancy and Street Offences. I should like to take the opportunity of thanking all those who have produced this interesting report, although I am afraid I cannot agree with all its recommendations. As I have told the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I should like first to discuss street offences. I was sorry that there was no person on the committee who was not an official, but I understand that it was a departmental committee and I am grateful to the voluntary organisations which gave information to that committee.
I should like to know why, the original report having been produced in 1974, it took until 1976 to get the Government's views. I tried previously to have a debate on this subject, but I was told that views were not yet formed, and therefore I am taking this opportunity because I believe there is to be a committee presided over by Professor Williams and some of the points I wish to raise may be useful when that committee is considering future policy.
Noble Lords may know that in 1959, when the Conservative Government brought in the Street Offences Act, I fought it all the way through and took every opportunity in Committee to table Amendments. I failed dismally to get any action, but I should like to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—and I am sorry he cannot be here today—for the efforts he has made in this House to get a change in the law. For 13 years I was the Chairman of the Status of Women Committee and we argued in favour of equal moral standards, but Section 1 of the 1959 Act penalises for solicitation only the "common prostitute", while ignoring the menace of solicitation by men. I hope—and perhaps the noble Lord will be able to reply to this point—that in view of the Sex Discrimination Act of 1975 any future legislation will refer to "any persons soliciting", because I believe the 1959 Act is entirely out of line with the new Sex Discrimination Act.
I have personal experience of such discrimination. I was told that some hotels in Park Lane discriminated against

975
women and I went along with a woman friend one night after eleven o'clock, which I was told was the appropriate hour. We asked for a cup of coffee each, we were refused and told to leave. That does not happen to a couple of men, but it happened to me personally and I have checked up with other friends and found that it has also been their experience. Surely in the year 1977 it should be recognised that there should he no difference between the sexes in the standards of morality.
I agree that men and women are equally responsible for any evils arising from prostitution, and I am glad to note from the Green Paper that the offence in Section 3 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the provision in Section 3 of the Universities Act 1825 are recommended to be repealed, and I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that this action is to be taken. However, I should like to see the term "common prostitute" eliminated. I do not mean this in any derogatory way but it is a true statement: women would not be on the streets if it were not for men, whereas men solicit both sexes and have no label attached. That is an unfortunate state of affairs. It is regrettable that a young woman may be brought before the court and the term "common prostitute" goes on her record. Later, perhaps she is happily married and is involved in a motoring offence. Surely it must be a great shock to her husband when her record is mentioned.
With regard to the cautioning system, paragraph 95 of the report recommended that this should be retained while admitting that it has little success. If one looks in the main report at page 131, Table XI, one sees that in 1972—and I cannot understand why there are no later figures—despite cautioning, the number of prosecutions, the numbers found guilty, the numbers on probation and on suspended sentences and with a term of one month in prison have increased. The number of cautions given was 3,000, but the interesting figure is that the number of applications to have those cautions expunged was one, and actually that one was not accepted. I should like to suggest that cautioning does not work and it is a waste of time for both the police and others who have to do it.
The imposition of fines forces women to go on the streets again to get the money to pay the fines. Therefore, I am sorry that Recommendation No. 20 is to be continued and I should like the noble Lord to say whether he is in agreement with that recommendation. Whether Recommendation No. 90, a new offence, will have effect in controlling kerb crawling one does not know. It may be helpful but, as has been suggested, I should have thought a simple reversal of the case of Crook v. Edmondson would have been better. I should like to point out that in this and other recommendations the only result is likely to be an increase in the number going into our already overcrowded prisons. I hope if cautioning is to be retained there will be the same action for both sexes. But what worries me in regard to kerb crawling is that it is only too easy for a man to park his car round the corner, go and solicit a woman, take her to the car, and once she is in the car she is helpless.
I understand that at any one time there are between 20 and 25 prostitutes in Holloway prison. That is the only prison for which I have been able to obtain the figures. Surely hostels would be better for that type of offence, particularly for young girls. It will not be possible to change the way of life of the older women, and here the young girls meet with the older women and learn (shall we say?) the tricks of the trade, which in my view is most unpleasant for them.
The 1959 Act also made many young girls go underground and depend on pimps and ponces. They have to depend on a man because if they share a flat with another girl it is called a brothel and it is illegal, as is advertising. I should like to suggest that two or three girls might be allowed to share a flat. Rents are very high and if two or three were to share together they could get a better class of accommodation, give a better service, and live a better life because they can protect each other.
The normal sexual instincts, being so potent and constant, produce a fertile field for the promotion of need in a highly profitable business and prostitutes often cannot afford to choose between one client and another. The Wellclose Square Foundation has made an excellent study of this problem and I am only sorry

977
that they did not give evidence, according to the Green Paper. In his book Prostitutes Jeremy Sandford said:
"We are most of us amateurs in love-making but they"—
that is the prostitutes—
"are professionals".
That is sad, but I think it is true, and although in some ways we look down on prostitutes, many of them are in many ways helpful to their clients.
Turning to the United Nations Charter, the 1967 Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women states, in Article 8, that all appropriate measures, including legislation, shall be taken to combat all forms of traffic in women and the prostitution of women. Therefore, I consider that no person should he convicted of annoyance without the evidence of the person aggrieved; also that the purpose of prostitution should not be part of any offence. It is well known, too, that there are escort agencies and the girls are not necessarily prostitutes. However, I gather that they are often classed as prostitutes by vice squads, who have photographs of all the girls, which they can produce at any time.
Having studied this problem and finding that girls are often open to blackmail, I hope the Minister will ask his right honourable friend the Home Secretary to consider the total abolition of all laws concerning prostitution, thus avoiding blackmail and many other undesirable actions and the sweeping under the carpet, particularly in respect of the younger girls, as has happened since the 1959 Act. I think there should be a high and equal regard for standard morality and sexual responsibility and public opinion in law and in practice. People experiencing persistent nuisance in public places have, of course, recourse to the law, but they should be required to give evidence in court. I am dividing my speech, and I will now turn to the subject of vagrancy, if I may.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend would allow me to intervene. Did she really mean all laws on prostitution? Surely she did not mean laws covering the exploitation of prostitution.
Baroness VICKERS: Well, my Lords, if the persons complaining had to go to
978
law to prove it, that is what I should like to see. I do not want laws against the prostitutes. As I said before, there are very few people who ever go, and you very seldom catch people who are actually exploiting. I should like the girls not to be punished in the way they have been punished in the past. In view of the fact that some definite suggestions have been made in regard to vagrancy, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will say on which points the Government intend to take action. Does he agree with Recommendations 3, 4, 10, 11 and 12; that matters in previous legislation, shall be abolished or repealed without replacement? Will action be taken on Recommendations 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9? If so, will a Bill be produced in the near future.
I only want to confine my remarks on this section to vagrancy. There is a Yiddish proverb:
"From dust we come, to dust we return; Betwixt and between a drink comes in handy"
It is regrettable that the vagrancy problem has increased three-fold since Governments made cuts in hostel accommodation. The casual wards in the former workhouses have been shut, as have such places as the Rowton Houses, and prison sentences have been shorter. Previously vagrants could plan their lives, as it should be recognised that true vagrancy—I want to make this point very definitely—is a trade and not a misfortune in the majority of cases. The number of dangerous vagrants on the road has increased. Police harassment, especially in this year, has increased considerably. New roads, in particular from Scotland—and Scots form a large percentage of the vagrants—have increased, and it means that they can travel more easily from town to town and continue the conning of the various agencies. Misfortune sets in only when too much alcohol has rendered the vagrant incapable of plying his trade.
I understand there are about 370,000 "cowboys", which is their term for themselves, and they have a dictionary of words and their own language to describe the ways of conning all authorities. I had an opportunity to study all this because when I was at Plymouth that town was known as the end of the line. It had a very remarkable man called Roberts Leakiewicz. He was a portrait painter,

979
and he painted many of the "cowboys". He learned their language and he asked them seven different questions. and printed their views in a book. In Plymouth—and I imagine in quite a lot of other towns—the vagrant population has increased since the Second World War. One police constable who gave his views in this book stated that in his experience vagrants rarely want to reform; they just want somewhere to sleep at night. It seems that if- you do not want to be reformed you cannot have a place to sleep. The police have the duty under the law that the vagrant be first directed to a place of reasonable shelter. The nearest shelter may be miles away. The vagrant would need to refuse to go there before he could be arrested. So they just move on.
One of the difficulties is that the standard of living has risen so rapidly in the past 50 years that the vagrants stand out like a sore thumb. The problem has always been with us, but it is now highlighted by its contact with affluence. When many of us in this House were young a tramp was a member of society. If he came to your door you might say, "Hey you, go to the back door, that is your place". Then he would be given food. He had his place in society. The workhouses were the country seats of the vagrant. He knew where they were; he knew how many miles it was to the next one, and he knew when it shut. Nothing, unfortunately, has replaced this type of accommodation. The Salvation Army tries to help, but they have other commitments. All these so-called "cowboys" are anxious to keep their way of life. They have their own nicknames—-"Duggie", "Jock". In fact Jock wrote an excellent poem of which I will be very happy to give to the Minister a copy. "Butch", "Harmonica Jim"; they answered the questions in the book:
"I am an outcast. But I can work if I want to. I can get a room if I want to. I am just happy as I am, that is all".
The terms of reference have meant that the Working Party was instructed to look at the provisions of the Vagrancy Acts, doing the job by Statute without regard for the plight in general of homeless single persons. How is imprisonment or a fine going to assist people? They will have to do something they would not wish
980
to do in order to pay the fine. The National Assistance Board report for 1966—the last figures I could get—showed that 24·5 per cent. of persons sleeping rough ascribed their doing so to necessity. Women are less of a problem, but even today, I gather, 20 to 25 vagrant women are in Holloway Prison. Surely, they should not be filling up our overcrowded prisons. I think that other accommodation should be found. Another problem has arisen with regard to vagrant women; there are a number of young ones coming over from the EEC countries to England with a one-way ticket; they are picked up by the police from time to time and there are quite a number of them also in Holloway Prison.
I hope, my Lords, that I have not spoken too long on this very important report. I have tried to give a brief outline of the two measures in which I am particularly interested. I understand that Professor Williams' committee will be sitting. I hope the Minister will tell us what will be its terms of reference. I shall be very grateful if the Minister will consider the points I have made, and perhaps agree that the Government should take action. I should like to thank him particularly for coming today because I know it is not his normal work; that he is standing in for his noble ft lend Lord Harris of Greenwich. Therefore, I am doubly grateful to him for the interest he takes, and for coming here to answer this Question.
7.8 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lady Vickers for drawing our attention to this report, especially as it is such an important one dealing with so many different offences about which, in one way or another, one hears nearly every day through the Press. Until my noble friend drew my attention to this report, I did not realise that so many offences existed. On reading the report I was glad to see that some of these are now going to be quietly shelved, or put out of their misery. I should also like to congratulate the Working Party on this report, not an easy one by any manner of means. Though we can criticise the time that it has taken to produce the report nevertheless it must have taken an enormous amount of patient work to

981
get opinions and observations upon some of the crimes and the ways and means of dealing with them.
I would prefer to make observations rather than a lengthy speech, because my noble friend has covered the subject and the different crimes extremely well. One that she mentioned was prostitution, and I see that the 1959 Act is to be retained. The Working Party gave a great deal of thought to the subject of indecent displays. As I told your Lordships, I should like to make observations rather than a detailed speech. First, the Working Party had to find out the meaning of the word "indecent", the extent to which they could go in trying to change the offences embraced by that word and how to bring it up to date with modern thinking. We now have such events as peepshows, which are becoming increasingly popular, and the difficulty is to ensure that children do not get too near what I believe are called these "quick film" units. The difficulty is to stop them spending their money and viewing the vulgarity. I confess that I have no idea what such films are like, but I am told that in America they are pretty foul.
Equally, I am interested in the severe fines and punishments which the Working Party recommend and with which I agree. I notice that the report recommends that anyone who owns a shop which has these particular items should have a licence and that failure to have such a licence would mean a fine of £400 or three months' imprisonment. I believe that that is excellent especially for such severe crimes, particularly if we can keep children away from such shows.
I was interested in what the report says about the act of indecent exposure, which is one of the worst crimes. I imagine that the Working Party found it extremely difficult to obtain any new ideas on how to deal with that. Paragraph 41 on page 10 of the report says:
"Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 makes it an offence for a ' person wilfully, openly, lewdly and obscenely, to expose his person with intent to insult any female '. This offence is limited to exposure by a male of the genital organ to a female with specific intent to insult".
The Working Party started very well on that and then got down to trying to break it down further in paragraph 43, which says:
982
"Our Working Paper suggests that these provisions should be replaced by a new offence whose essence would be exposure of the male genital organs in such circumstances that the exposer knew or ought to have known that his exposure was likely to be seen by persons to whom the exposure was likely to cause offence".
They then proposed a maximum fine of £100 and/or three months' imprisonment. In that respect they got down to the right wording for that particular crime. I wonder whether the penalty of £100 and/or three months' imprisonment is sufficiently high. A man committing that act must surely know in his own mind that he is doing it, unless he is mentally sick. I simply wonder whether that penalty is sufficient.
The other interesting part of the report is under the heading. "Being Found on Enclosed Premises". I looked very hard in the report to find out whether squatters were to be included. We have had a great many problems of squatters taking over houses, offices and so on. I believe that squatters should have been included because the problem arises of trying to evacuate them from premises. The report goes right round the subject of trespass, breaking in and so on, but does not mention squatting. I suppose and presume that it is the same as "trespassing". It appears that at this stage one is unable to move squatters. I believe that the word "squatting should have been included in the report.
Except for one further point, I think that those observations are sufficient. We on these Benches agree with many parts of the report, but we must stress that the punishment must fit the crime. To become too liberal with punishments might encourage some to think in the year 1977 that they are able to run amok, wearing no clothes, or partake in habits which are not enjoyed or liked by the public. Therefore the punishment must definitely fit the crime.
However, there is one problem which it is difficult to overcome, and that concerns the prison aspect. If an individual does not pay his fine automatically he goes to prison for one or three months. However, we do not have enough room in our prisons to maintain that type of pressure. Every day people break these laws; if they do not have the money or are downand-outs, they have to go to prison. Therefore, do the Government have any

983
thoughts on this type of punishment—namely, imprisonment? As I have said, our prisons are greatly overloaded and it must be very difficult for the warders to keep up with this constant coming and going of prisoners undergoing short sentences.
I should like to ask the Government when we can implement the report of the Working Party on Vagrancy and Street Offences. Obviously some parts of the law in this area need modernising, and other parts are not needed. Perhaps now we shall be able to go forward and try to modernise the offences in order to help the police, magistrates and anyone else involved.
7.20 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to make one short observation. I join with both my noble friends in congratulating those who have prepared the report. They have obviously taken a great deal of trouble and it is a very clear report. However it covers a wide range of offences. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will refer to the committee that is about to be set up under Professor Williams. I wonder whether it would be possible for him to turn out the committee's recommendations on these various points as quickly as possible. I quite see that he will have first to consider the general principles, but after that it seems quite reasonable that he should consider particular matters one by one.
One of the most obvious and easy things to deal with would be the indecent public displays. My noble friend Lord Long referred to this. I do not need to go into this or comment on it in any way at the present time, but there is no doubt that gratuitously, as the committee say, giving offence to the public is something that is totally unnecessary. Admittedly, there are matters of judgment involved, but to people going along our streets, including those people who come to visit this country from abroad, this really causes offence. It also makes people ashamed when they see foreigners going along the streets and, by looking at some of these indecent displays, taking a view of what kind of a people we are. They seem to me totally unnecessary.
984
One of the reasons I put this first is that reliance at the moment is placed on Acts of Parliament which are, by and large, so very old. As the Committee say, the courts often do not take kindly to reliance on Acts that seem to be outdated, certainly not on those which are 150 years old or more. This is a relatively simple matter to deal with, with the greatest of deference to my noble friend. Perhaps the subjects she has been talking about are of much greater long-term importance. Considering how old these Acts are and that the object is to modernise them, that probably not a great deal of change is needed, and also that the courts dislike having to rely on such old Acts, it seems to me that this matter ought to be dealt with very quickly. I say that particularly as we have had before us Bills which were aimed at these matters and, for one reason or another, have not gone through. I would suggest to the Government that, in forming their terms of reference to Professor Williams and his Committee, they might recommend that they deal as quickly as they can with these matters, even if other matters may require longer and more mature consideration.
7.23 p.m.
Viscount CRAIGAVON: My Lords, I also am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this report. I am afraid that I have none of her great experience to enable me to look at this report in the detail in which she has today. I shall be referring only to the part concerned with street offences. The implementation of some parts is obviously more urgent than others; and while appreciating the restricted terms of reference of the report, I must say that feel strongly the absurdity of compartmentalising the single aspect of street prostitution: to that extent, what we are necessarily talking about seems to be a largely cosmetic alteration to the Street Offences Act 1959. For this reason, my remarks will mainly be about the problems of the law as it is, and as proposed in the report, rather than the wider and in most senses more important philosophical considerations of prostitution in society generally.
If I was to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, as [do, that these wider issues should be urgently considered, I would probably be given the same answer

985
that was given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, at the end of the recent debate on homosexuality; namely, that the Home Secretary's Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Policy Advisory Committee on Sexual Offences are considering the wider issues of prostitution, and that they will report in due time. This may not be until next year. Thus, to answer the implied query in the last sentence of paragraph 89 of the report, I would say that it was very desirable to look at the definition of street offences again in the wider context of the whole of the law on sexual offences.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, could say whether the two committees I have just referred to have specifically asked for written opinions on prostitution when asking organisations to submit evidence. The processes to achieve any changes in the law following a new report will no doubt take a considerable time. Also, without being unduly cynical, I cannot see a sympathetic approach to prostitution being a vote-winning issue at any time. Given that rather pessimistic view of the priority of prostitution as an issue, I agree that some cosmetic revision may be acceptable pending a larger review.
With those reservations, I think I am broadly convinced by the report before us on maintaining of the system of cautioning, and on the increasing of lines to realistic levels for female prostitution. Again, I broadly agree with the report's conclusion on kerb-crawling, although I would support a formal cautioning system as a safeguard. Perhaps I could mention an area of prostitution not directly relevant to street offences but, in my view, inextricably bound up with it: that is the proliferation of massage parlours. This is a problem which, as I see it, will not wait for the leisurely general view of prostitution that I have just referred to.
There was a very good examination of this problem on London Weekend Television's "London Programme" about two months ago. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, took part in the discussion following a filmed report. The problem, as I am raising it here, is not the fact of the existence of these establishments, but how they are operated and financially controlled. The huge sums of money involved
986
in what the law says is an illegal business inevitably attracts the criminal element. It is extremely difficult for the police to prove that the law is being broken, both in gathering evidence at the level of public interface, and in connecting the bosses who receive the big money with anything illegal.
A relatively recent development, following some successful prosecutions of escort agencies, is the openly advertised visiting massage services. It was alleged in the programme I referred to that a single organisation using a dozen different names and telephone numbers could make up to £150,000 a year. A chief inspector for the Metropolitan Police said that the present law was simply not adequate to tackle this sort of situation. It is worth saying that these enormous profits are estimated only from the ostensibly legal massage fee of, say, £15: what is earned by the girls for extra services may be three or four times more than that. So the total sums of money involved are considerable.
One by-product of this might be that this wealth is used to finance further, and socially much more damaging, criminal activity. This situation would seem to demand urgent attention. While we are discussing useful but cosmetic alterations to the 1959 Act, it seems that one of the main aims of recent legislation, in preventing third parties profiting from prostitution, is being thwarted. While there remains the basic contradiction at the root of the law's attitude to prostitution—that the act itself is not illegal, but activities which lead to that act are—the kind of situation I have just described is not surprising.
Society may fairly want to discourage prostitution and make entry to the profession difficult and unattractive for young girls. For this reason we choose to keep prostitution firmly beyond the fringes of respectability, and in various ways harass its practitioners, though not their customers. To the extent that we degrade prostitutes for this purpose, we are also degrading human beings.
It is too easy to put minorities conveniently outside what we call society, to cushion its internal contradictions; and just as in a real sense a society can be judged by the way it treats its slaves or

987
guest-workers or immigrants, I think that our attitude to prostitutes mirrors unresolved problems that are fairly central to society, a society which of course includes prostitutes themselves. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, can tell us that a wider and more general review of prostitution is being made. I do not want to supply him with reasons for Government inertia—I am sure he is quite capable of providing his own—but, in a realistic mood, I can see changes in legal attitudes to prostitution taking place only following a wider review of prostitution, rather than resulting from the report before us on street offences.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wish to apologise to the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, for having spoken out of turn; I misread the list of speakers and I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, was going to speak and I rose when I did not see Lord Craigton in his place.
7.32 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have listened carefully to the comments that have been made in this debate because I knew before it started that my right honourable friend had expressed the view tht he would be interested to know what views, expressions and opinions would be put forward this evening. The House may be aware that the Government have accepted this report in principle and have announced that they intend to seek an early legislative opportunity to implement its proposals.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, asked me why there had been so long an interval between the Working Party's working paper and the Working Party's report. The period was something like two years, but those two years were taken up by the Working Party getting the opinions of various people who had expressed interest so that they could produce their working paper before considering the report. Thus, the two years followed the Working Party's working paper. That was made available, as the noble Baroness pointed out, in 1974 to people who were interested to read it and communicate their views, comments and observations to the Working Party, who considered them before producing the
988
report. No time was lost and there was not an interval of two years in which nothing was done.
The noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, rather suggested that the Government were guilty of inertia. I will not deny that Governments do not move as fast as a number of people would like them to do, but we must face the fact that we are dealing with the oldest profession known to mankind, a profession which generates much hostility and aggression, although not over the whole field, and when one is dealing with something of this magnitude, which is a tremendous social problem, one must if necessary spend a long time in considering what really is involved before presuming to come forward with solutions. This is not an easy matter. Indeed, I can think of no more difficult sphere in which to come to a conclusion which will meet the wishes and needs of everybody.
The majority of the recommendations concern the repeal of the Vagrancy Acts and the replacement of the offences where necessary to meet modern circumstances. I am sure we would all agree that these archaic Acts, as many of them are, should be repealed and the offences replaced where necessary by modern ones. It is a matter for debate how far these offences need to be replaced. There are many people in this House and, I am sure, in the country as a whole, who are quite clear in their minds as to what should and what should not be permitted. The Government must consider, if they can consider with any degree of accuracy, the opinion of society as a whole—what society is prepared to accept and what it is not prepared to accept. As I say, while this debate has gone on for a good many years, and, I am sure, will go on for a good many more, in general the Government accept the Working Party's recommendations.
As regards the law on indecent displays —I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for intervening on this subject because he has had a good deal of experience in this sphere—the Government have concluded that the law on obscenity and indecency as a whole should be subjected to a fundamental review; and, as Lady Vickers rightly pointed out, a departmental committee on the subject will be chaired by Professor Bernard Williams. The appointment of Professor Williams as chairman has only recently

989
been announced. The committee has not yet been appointed but the noble Baroness asked me to state its terms. I understand the terms to be to review the laws concerning obscenity, indecency and violence in publications, displays and entertainments in England and Wales, except in the field of broadcasting, and to review the arrangements for film censorship in England and Wales, and to make recommendations.
As regards Part II of the report, which relates to street offences, some of the recommendations concerning penalties for street soliciting by prostitutes and homosexual soliciting are, as your Lordships know, being debated in another place in the Criminal Law Bill. Nothing has been said tonight about kerb crawling, but while the Government in general accept the Working Party's proposals, they consider that legislation on those aspects should wait until further progress has been made with the Criminal Law Revision Committee's wider review of sexual offences. I do not think I can say to Lord Craigavon more than that, except that its remit is to make a wider review than hitherto.
The House will recognise that, while we should have liked to deal this Session with more of the problems studied by the Working Party, it has not been possible to do so, but we intend to seek an early opportunity with a view to bringing in legislation. I do not know whether it is necessary for me to say anything about certain other aspects. Lady Vickers raised the question, to summarise her remarks roughly, of sleeping rough, and one has to bear in mind that this is a very real problem. The existing provisions make it an offence for a person to wander abroad and lodge in certain places without giving a good account of himself, but the prosecution must prove either that the defendant declined to use a reasonably accessible place of free shelter or that he is likely to cause infection with vermin. As noble Lords who have read the Working Party's paper and report will know, the Working Party proposes a new offence to replace the present one which is not apt nowadays, although the nuisance continues. The proposal attracts opposition—I recognise this—from pressure groups, such as the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless, who have pressed for the decriminalisation of vagrancy
990
offences; but we consider that, while some degree of public nuisance has to be tolerated, there is still a place for the criminal law in its control.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, drew attention to the plight of the vagrants. I accept this, but we are dealing with an entirely different problem today from the problem which existed before the war, to which I can cast back my mind. There were literally thousands of vagrants; it became necessary to have, at strategic intervals, what we then used to call casual wards, to be able to meet the need of the tramp or the vagrant, many of whom were both very infectious and very verminous. The situation today bears little or no relationship to the situation which we then found.
There are views expressed to the effect that we ought to be providing facilities for such people and that these facilities should be available when they get to a certain point, and I have much sympathy with this; but I would suggest that the provision of such facilities would he disporportionate to the number of people who would need them. Before the war I had some experience of this problem in the field of professional social work in which I was engaged, and I never came across a casual ward that was not full. I cannot remember a single casual ward where the men did not line up in the afternoon in order to get in. But today the problem does not arise to the same degree, and it would mean providing a large number of hostels, rather than casual wards, which would probably be used by only one, two, or three people each day or each night; and I do not think that the figure would be anything more than that.
It may be that we have to do something in this field, and I presume that, if we do, it will he the responsibility of the Department of Health and Social Security. But we must realise that it would be frightfully expensive, and I would not at this stage hold out any hope of being able to do anything about it.
As I explained earlier, the Professor Williams Committee will have responsibility for the matter of indecent displays, which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, raised. The noble Baroness asked me to express my own view on one or two matters, but this of course I cannot do;

991
I can express only the view of the Government. I should love to express my own view on what I think of indecent displays. All I can say is that I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and I should like to feel that something would be done about this at the earliest possible moment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, while dealing with the whole question of prostitution, asked me for a view on this. The law on prostitution is being looked at as part of the wider review of sexual offences, as I told the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon. Meanwhile, I do not think that we can undertake to do as she suggested; namely, to substitute the word "any" for"common prostitute". I think that this would be a very unlikely solution, and I think that the reasons for that are set out very clearly in the final report of the Working Party, which I know she has seen.
I wish to come back to the question of vagrancy and the points put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, regarding the criminal law. As I said, the Government have accepted all the Working Party's recommendations and intend to implement them; but I must point out that the Government have made it perfectly clear that at present jury trial stays for homosexual soliciting, with the effect of having higher penalties. As the noble Baroness knows, there has been much discussion about whether or not there should be jury trial for homosexual soliciting, and in view of the representations made to them, the Government have come to the conclusion that jury trial must be maintained.
I believe that I have answered the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Long, on indecent displays, by saying that this comes within the reference of the Professor Williams Committee. The noble Viscount also raised a matter concerning closed premises, and I should say that in general this point does not extend to squatters, unless they are there for criminal purposes.
I now wish to turn to the question which the noble Viscount, Lord Craigavon, raised, of massage parlours, as well as similar establishments. The Home
992
Secretary has expressly asked the Criminal Law Revision Committee to look at this matter, and this, too, is part of the wider review which we hope to give.
I do not think that I can usefully add anything more to what I have already said, other than to say that I know that Hansard will be read tomorrow with some considerable interest by my right honourable friend at the Home Office; that the Government certainly are not unmindful of the urgency of this matter, and are certainly not unmindful of the changes which must be made—
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord a question on one point. He has not mentioned the Sex Discrimination Act and what is now the difference, as opposed to the Street Offences Act 1959. Will that be taken into consideration? Surely it contravenes the Sex Discrimination Act.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot honestly say that I know what is in the mind of my right honourable friend regarding this matter, but I can say now that the fact that the noble Baroness has raised it means that it will certainly be considered.