Lords Sitting of 28 February 1978

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.

DEFENCE EXPENDITURE: FORCES' PAY
Lord SHINWELL: 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 decision to increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. between now and 1980 will include increases in the pay of all ranks in the Forces.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, our intention is to increase defence spending by 3 per cent. a year in real terms in 1979–80 and 1980–81, subject, in the case of the latter year, to review in the light of our economic circumstances. Since public expenditure planning is carried out at constant survey prices, no allowance is made in these plans for future pay and prices increases. Provision will be made for such increases when the time comes, and will be additional to the 3 per cent. real increase.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am very grateful for that informative reply, but does it not indicate that we require two debates on the subject of defence: one, the ordinary debate on defence, the question of whether we can afford another 3 per cent. and what effect it will have; and the other, in the event of a recommendation by the Review Board affecting pay and allowances, a debate on manpower and salary questions? Would it not require two debates?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I made no such implication. I am not in a position to arrange what debates are undertaken. These are matters for the usual channels.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, bearing in mind the various productivity schemes and schemes for job re-assessment which have been awarded to many wage earners and which have led to an increase in their take-home pay in excess of 10 per cent., will Her Majesty's Government take urgent measures to devise steps similar to these schemes for the Armed Forces so that the "x" factor may be properly respected and in order to acknowledge and recognise the many non-military tasks that have consistently been given to the Armed Forces?
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, we all await the report of the Armed Forces Review Body, and I think that it might be more appropriate to discuss this matter when we know what recommendations they will make to Her Majesty's Government.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, although my noble friend has no authority to determine procedure in the matter of debates, would he not agree that it would be invidious if we had a defence debate only to discover that the majority of noble Lords wanted to talk about manpower, pay and allowances—a very important subject—and thus not talk about defence at all? Would he not agree to make representations to his right honourable friend and to my noble friend the Chief Whip to convey to other Chief Whips that we might have two debates, one distinctly to consider defence, and the other to consider the question of manpower, pay and allowances?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I can only repeat what I have said earlier. My noble friends are listening and they will decide what course the House should take in conjunction with noble Lords opposite.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION
2.40 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: 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 agree that only the adoption of proportional representation will

359
make politicians put the national interest first and Party interest second, and thus avoid constant changes by both Parties on issues such as wage restraint.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, no. I do not think that the pursuit of the national interest depends on the adoption of any particular electoral system.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask whether, in fact, he saw the Liberal Party broadcast; and, if he did so, does he not think that there were strong and cogent arguments for the substance of the Question that I have raised?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I regret to say that I did not see the last Liberal Party broadcast.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, has my noble friend considered how many seats that proportional representation would give to the National Front in the House of Commons?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is no doubt an issue which can be discussed when this House addresses itself to this particular issue, as it does, if 1 may say so, with considerable frequency.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that that last remark is totally incorrect and it has been proved to be so? Any proportional representation system which has a threshold of 5 per cent. or more makes it quite impossible—as it has in West Germany—for a neo-Nazi Party to rise in any country.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this rather strengthens my feeling that this issue can be discussed more appropriately on a substantive Motion rather than at Question Time.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the national interest would be served by the introduction of a second ballot to enable an enlightened electorate either to confirm or to correct its decision on the first ballot?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, without, I hope, repeating myself, I think that issues of this sort are matters for debate rather than Question Time.

THE HOSPITAL SERVICE: URGENT ADMISSIONS
2.42 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: 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 can confirm the report in the Sunday Times of 5th February that 62 per cent. of urgent cases are admitted to hospitals after waiting at least a month.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I confirm that the figures of "urgent" cases awaiting hospital admission quoted in the Sunday Times on 5th February last are correct: that is, there were 38,373 patients with conditions classified as "urgent" awaiting admission at 31st March 1977. of whom about 62 per cent. had been waiting for over one month.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, do the Government agree that this is a deplorable situation? What steps do they hope to take to remedy it in view of the fact that these figures are nearly one year old?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is very difficult to give an adequate answer to the noble Lord in a short reply. One has to bear in mind that the incidence of illness among the elderly is very considerable because we have an increasing elderly population. The types of operation now possible are very different, complex and numerous. Today, we are supplying all sorts of "spare parts" surgery, such as replacement hips. A great many operations for orthopaedic conditions are long, involved and expensive.
There are a number of factors which make it difficult to give the noble Lord a satisfactory answer. I would point out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently said that £9½ million would be available to help regional health authorities, through their area health authorities, to come to grips

361
with this particular problem. We have been told that, if there could be renovation of operating theatres, the provision of new operating theatres, restoration of wards and the creation of new wards, it would all help—as indeed it would—to reduce the waiting lists. The sum of £92 million has been made available in the forthcoming year to enable area health authorities to do precisely that.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord if all the area authorities have made representations, and how their claims are going to be met in order to be fair?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sure that the area represented at one time by the noble Baroness has certainly put its claim in.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, is it not a fact that the length of the waiting list varies very much according to the specialty and the hospital, district or region in which the hospital exists? In view of that, would it not be a very good idea if the Department were to get in touch with the chairman of the medical board in hospitals in which the waiting list was particularly long and ask for his comments?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, who has a vast experience in this field. I agree entirely with what he said in the first part of his question. So far as the second part is concerned, I do not know whether my right honourable friend is in direct touch with the chairmen; I will certainly bring it to his notice. I am grateful for the comment.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, as it has been the policy of the Government to close down certain hospitals—maybe for adequate reasons—is it not a fact that every time a hospital is closed several operating theatres are also closed? That is one of the reasons why people have to wait so long for operations.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is not so. A hospital is not closed unless, first, there is a very good reason
362
for doing so; and, secondly, similar facilities are available at not too great a distance.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, similar facilities but not so many.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether any priority is given to surgical cases that are waiting, for those who are in real pain? It is so distressing to hear that somebody in great pain may have to wait over a month to be admitted to hospital.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this term "urgent" is very difficult to define. All emergency cases—and, at some period, they could have been "urgent" cases—are admitted immediately and are dealt with. The rest of the urgent cases are dealt with as quickly as possible. There are priorities, and those priorities are determined by the consultant. Where it is possible to hold one case back for another which is more urgent, this is done. Where there is considerable pain, this is a clinical matter on which I could not rule other than to say that, from my own personal knowledge, a good many people who experience pain receive the benefits of modern science to overcome it.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord have any figures to show whether this situation regarding urgent cases has become better or worse over the past three or four years?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, to be perfectly honest, it has fluctuated. It depends on a number of factors which I have tried to explain. We have to bear in mind that there is a considerable pressure on our hospitals. For example, last year over 5¼ million patients were treated as in-patients. That is a number which has never been reached in the past; it is an all-time record. At the same time, 7½ million new out-patients were seen during 1976. In addition to that, there were half a million day cases. There is considerable pressure on the hospitals. To go back to the noble Earl's question, the "urgent" list does fluctuate.

FORD WAGE INCREASES AND THE GUIDELINES
2.48 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 whether the recent agreement by the Ford Motor Company for wage increases to their employees was in the Government view within the Government guidelines.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, the Ford settlement was reached in October 1977. It was within the guidelines in so far as it observed the 12-month rule. As to the amounts paid, it was a complicated settlement; and while it included increases for some groups within the company of just over 8 per cent. there were in other cases higher increases. Its overall effect was to increase earnings by more than the 10 per cent. guideline. In so far as that settlement exceeded the 10 per cent. guideline, the Government regret it.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for that Answer, may I ask him this: How does he reconcile the substantial grant of assistance to this company in respect of their new engine factory in South Wales with the very firm assertion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in this House on 8th February, that those who broke the guidelines would not receive Government money?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the House will realise, as the country certainly does, that the Government have to look at each individual case on its merits. The grant of assistance in relation to the Welsh project is one thing; pay policy is another. The House will surely appreciate, as I am certain the country does as well, that the Ford settlement was one of the first to be made. The Government had to look at it very carefully indeed, and at that time it was conceived that, although the aim was to have a 10 per cent. increase, and no more, in the national earnings, it was possible that some wage settlements
364
might exceed that 10 per cent. provided that others fell below it. Of course, that has not turned out to be the case and the Government are now determined to ensure that cases, whether in the public or private sector, will not exceed the 10 per cent. guidelines.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord appreciate that smaller companies which have granted no larger increases than Ford, but which have been blacklisted, will be left with the unhappy suspicion that the real reason for the discrimination in favour of Ford is that they are big and formidable and that it is easier to trample on a small company?
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, that suspicion is wholly preposterous. The Sun Alliance, which is a kind of offshoot of the Conservative Party, is certainly a big enough company and the Government have challenged the company's settlement and challenged it so far successfully. It is not size that matters. What matters, and what I think the country realises—as noble Lords opposite, with their "Hear, hear!", do not seem to realise—is that this policy is being successful. That is what matters.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that there is nothing new about Governments who have sanctions of this type using them in a flexible way? For example, a succession of Tory Governments used the sanctions of the fair wages clause—
A noble Lord: That is the other way!
Lord LEE of NEWTON: —against certain companies and not against others. Is the noble and learned Lord aware also that, in the other place last Thursday, the Tory spokesmen were saying that the present level of increases is running at 14 to 15 per cent? Ought not the Government to be congratulated in having made this very good agreement at 12 per cent?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I certainly would not want to go along wholeheartedly with the last few words of

365
my noble friend; but Ministers in this instance, as in all instances, have to take into account not just the overriding priority of combating inflation but also other factors, including employment, particularly in areas which are hard-hit by unemployment. These are matters which Ministers take into account: they apply their very limited discretion with as much care as they can, in the light of the facts of each individual case.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware that the Ford Motor Company have always operated on a day-wage basis and never on any productivity bonus scheme of any kind in the whole of their history? Is he aware that whereas other firms have paid in excess of 10 per cent. because of a productivity bonus, it would have been very difficult indeed to do this in the case of the Ford Motor Company?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am indebted to my noble friend. That is really what I was trying to encapsulate when I used the word "complicated" to describe the settlement. It may take some time to see precisely what the effect of this settlement is in relation to total earnings.
Lord THORNEYCROFT: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recall the rhyme that circulated in Whitehall at the time of the Geddes axe "?
"But most of all they smote the weak
Because they knew they would not squeak
So loudly when they died".—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
A noble Lord: That was a Tory Government!
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not think I need add to the cries of "Tories" coming from behind me, but I would ask the noble Lord this: Does he think that the Sun Alliance is to be described as "the weak"? Perhaps that is why it deserves and gets so much support from his noble friends.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I have no poetry to recite. I merely want to ask my noble friend this question: Is it not a fact that 96 per cent. of the
366
major wage claims settled in the last six months have been within the guidelines?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, that is correct, and if in their criticisms noble Lords opposite would be less grudging they would acknowledge the broad success of the counter-inflation policy and would offer us not their sneers but their congratulations.
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, could the noble and learned Lord explain or give a brief definition of what he means by "preposterous" as applied to the proposition, which may be right or wrong, that it is easier to attack the weak than to attack the strong?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the noble Viscount has been in this House longer than 1 have and therefore has much greater experience of what is preposterous.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: MARCH BUSINESS
2.55 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, without being preposterous, may I say that a Statement was made yesterday in another place about the business to be taken during March in the EEC Council of Ministers. With the leave of the House, I will, as usual, arrange for the Statement to be made available in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during March. The monthly written forecast was deposited on Thursday, 23rd February.
"At present four meetings of the Council of Ministers are proposed for March. Agriculture Ministers will meet on the 6th and 7th, Foreign Ministers on the 7th, Finance Ministers on the 20th, and Energy Ministers on the 21st. A joint meeting of ACP/EEC Ministers will also be held on the 13th and 14th to review the implementation of the Lomé Convention.
"Agriculture Ministers are expected to resume discussions on CAP prices for 1978–79, Mediterranean agriculture, producer groups and potato marketing arrangements. They are also expected to consider proposals for the future of the Milk Marketing Boards.
"Foreign Ministers are expected to consider relations with Japan, steel imports, the North/South dialogue, aid to non-associates, and direct elections to the European Assembly. They are also expected to adopt the Community mandate for the joint meeting of ACP/EEC Ministers.
"Finance Ministers are expected to discuss adaptations of the economic policy guidelines for 1978, the economic situation and Commission proposals for improved co-ordination of national economic policies.
"Energy Ministers are expected to resume discussions on Community energy policy objectives for 1985, refinery problems and assistance to the coal industry. They are also expected to consider financial aid to projects demonstrating energy saving and alternative energy sources, joint hydrocarbon exploration projects and minimum stock levels for oil products".

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 37 be dispensed with this day for the purpose of taking the Motion on the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 in the name of the Lord Chancellor before the Industrial and Provident Societies Bill.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REFUSE DISPOSAL (AMENITY) BILL [H.L.]
(formerly Refuse Disposal Bill [H.L.])
Report received.

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
2.57 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, there are four Private Bills down for Second Reading this afternoon and in moving the Second Reading of the first of them, that is the Cheshire County Council Bill, I think it might be useful if I make an observation on all four of the Bills. I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if we had one debate and that any of your Lordships who wish to speak, either on a point that is general to all four Bills or
368
particular to one of them, should do so in this first debate; then I would move formally the Second Reading of the remainder of the Bills. I would hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, would agree that it might be best if we were to discuss all his Instructions in the same first debate and then that he should move them individually when we have passed the Second Reading of each Bill.
First, as to the background and purposes of these four Bills, the Local Government Act 1972 established new local government areas in England and Wales and, in Section 262, enacted the repeal, with certain exceptions, of provisions contained in Private Acts at present in force in those areas or parts of them. The powers conferred by those Private Acts will cease to have effect in Metropolitan counties at the end of 1979 and in other counties elsewhere at the end of 1984, unless they have been re-enacted by fresh legislation.
This proposal of the 1972 Act has considerable merit, for at present there exists throughout the country a mass of local private legislation which differs from one local authority to another and is very difficult for the ordinary citizen to comprehend. The 1972 Act provided a unique opportunity for a thorough revision of all local legislation, and from 1984 on local legislation will be well documented and much more readily understandable by the public.
Some of your Lordships will doubtless recall the proceedings on the County of South Glamorgan Bill, which occupied the House both in Committee and in debate for a significant period in 1975. That Act was the first Private Bill promoted to retain provisions repealed by the Local Government Act 1972, and the four Bills to which the House is being asked to give a Second Reading this afternoon are further examples. All four of them have as their main purpose to re-enact with Amendments and, in some cases, to extend certain local enactments already in force within the area for which the newly-constituted authority is responsible. The Cheshire County Council Bill contains 115 clauses; the County of Merseyside Bill, 165; the West Midlands County Council Bill, 182, and the West Yorkshire Bill, 119.
As my predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said on moving the Second

369
Reading of the County of South Glamorgan Bill, such Bills, which deal with a very large number of topics affecting a great many people, must be scrutinised by Parliament with special care so as to ensure two things: first, that the general law should not be changed unless a compelling local need can be shown for variation; and, secondly, that whatever is passed into law should be, so far as possible, of the standard of draftsmanship that Parliament requires of Bills for Public General Acts.
To meet this latter requirement, the Chairman of Ways and Means in another place and I asked the Parliamentary Agents concerned with the promotion of these four Bills to collaborate and produce a set of clauses dealing with topics common to two or more of these Bills. The drafting of these common clauses was discussed last year by my Counsel and the Agents, and I should particularly like to thank the Agents and the local authorities for whom they are acting for their willing co-operation in this major exercise. The result is a group of 85 clauses which are common to two or more of these Bills. These are published and available in the Printed Paper Office, and are called General Powers Bills: Common Clauses.
Some of these common clauses are opposed by Petitioners and will be referred to a Private Bill Select Committee. It is, of course, normal for opposed clauses to be referred to a Select Committee, but usually one Select Committee deals with one Bill. In this instance, the Select Committee will be dealing with Petitions common to two, three or four Bills; in other words, it will be dealing with subjects rather than with individual Bills. This, it seems to me, is the only logical way to tackle the problem of these four Bills. Opposed clauses that occur in only one Bill will, as usual, be considered by other Select Committees set up for each Bill, and in due course I shall be asking the House to approve the necessary procedural Motions to set up these various Committees; that is, one on the opposed common clauses and four Select Committees, one on each of the Bills, to cover the opposed individual clauses of each Bill.
However, there is also a need for the powers conferred by the unopposed clauses to be approved and, in order to
370
consider them with the necessary care, I propose that, following the precedent set by the County of South Glamorgan Bill, they should be referred to a small Select Committee, consisting of myself and two other Members of the House and advised by my Counsel. Here, again, in due course I shall ask the House to agree the proper procedural Motion. I should like to stress, in particular, the importance of the special procedures to deal with the common clauses, because I believe that if Parliament is to find time to deal not only with these four Bills this Session, but with the large number of similar Bills which will follow in later Sessions, some form of procedure based on the common clauses is essential.
Finally, I should like to say something regarding the Instructions which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has on the Order Paper, which are directed at a provision which occurs in each Bill seeking to restrict parking in private gardens of heavy commercial vehicles, boats and caravans. His Instructions relate, in particular, to boats. I can see no procedural objection to the acceptance by the House of these Instructions, since they do no more than reinforce the points which will be made by several Petitioners against this section of all four Bills. These Petitioners include the Ship and Boat-Builders National Federation and the Royal Yachting Association. Even if these Instructions were not on the Order Paper, or if they were not agreed to by the House, the Select Committee would have to be satisfied by the Promoters of the necessity for this provision. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Lord Aberdare.)
3.5 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be most grateful to the Chairman of Committees for introducing and explaining the procedures to be adopted regarding these four very major Bills. I believe that in all they weigh nearly 3 1b., and are a very substantial burden as regards the number of hours of examination and very careful preparation by all those local authorities concerned. The reason why this debate is taking place in this form this afternoon relates, in particular, to the Instruction. But I should like to

371
stress to your Lordships that some of us felt that it would be a very great pity if the normal procedure for Private Bills were adopted; that is, that the Second Readings took place on a formal basis in the House, and the Bills were either accepted or rejected without debate. We believe that concentrating on a particular item will give an opportunity to your Lordships to consider other matters raised within the purview of these Bills. At the same time, I should also like to express my gratitude not only to the Chairman of Committees, but to the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Clerk of Private Bills, all of whom have assisted me in this procedure.
What is set out on the Order Paper looks a little formidable at first sight, until one has the benefit of examining the little Companion to the Standing Orders—and such an invaluable aid and guide it is on these occasions! As the Lord Chairman has outlined already what we propose to do, it would be quite superfluous of me to repeat it in any detail. But I think it goes without saying that the work on these Bills, and on many other Bills which are given to Committees upstairs in your Lordships' House, will mean an enormous amount of preparation and discussion away from the Floor of the House. I should like to stress that, in the case of these four Bills, there are no fewer than 54 Petitions, 11 of which are concerned with the common clauses—the document to which the Lord Chairman referred. I should like to say about the common clauses that this seems a most ingenious and beneficial way of proceeding, benefiting the Parliamentary Agents of the local authorities concerned, and also saving an inordinate amount of time—which otherwise would perhaps be spent unnecessarily—for other local authorities which follow the course of those four authorities with which we are concerned this afternoon.
We refer to Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972, from which, of course, all these four Bills derive. That Act, if I may be allowed to remind your Lordships, states that,
"All local statutory provisions to which this subsection applies shall cease to have effect in metropolitan counties at the end of 1979 and elsewhere at the end of 1984,"
372
which does not give very much time for all this to take place. I should like to stress what has already taken place in these four metropolitan counties. What has been done already was an enormously difficult task. Those four metropolitan counties have visited their archives and vaults and taken the entire schedule and catalogue of their local legislation, covering in many cases more than 150 years. They have gone through it all, and scheduled those Acts which they believe are superfluous at the present moment. This is a very large task indeed.
If I may refer to the West Midlands County Council Bill, I see that no fewer than 87 whole Acts, orders and continuation orders have been or are about to be repealed and that there is a total of 88 partial repeals of Acts and orders. It would be tedious to deal with other county councils. Nevertheless, Cheshire County Council, the first one with which we are concerned, has no fewer than 58 Acts and orders wholly repealed and 108 partly repealed.
It would be impracticable this afternoon to go in any great detail into more than perhaps two or three different topics. The Instruction refers especially to a situation which occurs in all four Bills. I believe that an issue of principle is raised, which I shall not go into in any great detail, that concerns what we term the parking of boats in gardens. This matter was raised in the case of the County of South Glamorgan Bill which was referred to, and we believe that there is some reference to it in existing legislation. Nevertheless, in the County of South Glamorgan Bill to which the Lord Chairman referred, I understand that this provision was absent. Therefore one can say that in existing legislation the parking of boats in gardens clause has been both precedented and then written off.
Our view on these Benches is that an unfortunate situation would arise if this precedent were to be adopted in all metropolitan counties. The Lord Chairman has referred to the fact that all local legislation will tend to be very much better scheduled and that local authorities will have it in a more readily available form. Hence, it is much more important that in the case of the very first local authorities concerned the lines should be straightened out, the ruffles removed and the

373
situation made clear from a basis of principle.
Your Lordships will be glad to hear that I do not intend to make a very long initial speech. However, I believe that it is important that we should consider the questions raised by this Instruction. Attention is drawn to whether there is a discriminatory interference by local authorities with the rights of the individual and also to whether the powers sought are suitable for inclusion in a Private Bill. The powers are wide. In the case of all four of these local authority Bills, a prosecution sanction is to be applied. In the case of legislation of this kind, we believe that this sanction should not be there.
Finally, may I refer to the situation as a whole. We believe that, with these four metropolitan county council Bills, your Lordships are undertaking a major legislative programme at a point in the Session when we are already becoming well aware of the Scotland Bill. Nevertheless, thanks to the very active preparations made by the Lord Chairman and his staff, noble Lords will be able to undertake these Bills with their usual vigour and satisfaction.
3.15 p.m.
Lord GREENWAY: My Lords, I rise very briefly to reinforce the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys—a concern which is shared by the boating industry in general—with regard to the possibility, under the Bills in question, of local authorities prohibiting the parking of boats over a certain size limit in private gardens. I am not unaware of the concern felt in boating circles about these proposed measures. Although I do not have a boat, I am a yachtsman and feel that I should declare an interest.
The Bills vary in their restrictions and penalties for parking boats in gardens. I feel that this is not particularly good. There should be more standardisation with regard to certain counties. I can foresee difficulties arising whereby a person who already keeps a boat in his garden moves to a different county and finds that he is not allowed to keep a boat in his garden. I believe that there is no provision under the Bills to warn a person about whether such a prohibition is in effect in the new county.
374
In most cases today, the parking of boats in private gardens could be considered to be a normal occurrence. Indeed, it could be argued that the use of a garden for the parking of a boat is considered to be part of the normal amenities afforded to a person for the enjoyment of his property. Generally speaking, those who keep their boats in private gardens can be divided into two groups. There are those who keep their boat on a trailer and tow it away every weekend to different locations. Visiting different areas is in itself part and parcel of their general enjoyment of boating. Then there are those who bring back their boats to their gardens during the winter, either through choice, because they enjoy the convenience of overhauling their boats in their gardens, or through necessity, due to the lack of winter moorings and storage facilities in boatyards. There is also the question of vandalism if somebody should leave his boat at a mooring during the winter. The incidence of vandalism has been high during the last few years. Then there is the question of the weather in the winter, which might do damage to a boat.
Many of the boats—I think probably the majority—which are kept in gardens fall into what I should like to call the small motor cruiser area: that is, a small motor boat having a cabin containing perhaps a couple of bunks but which certainly could not be construed as a boat that would be lived in, which is the type of boat that is prohibited under the clauses contained in the Bills. In fact, should one of these orders come into effect, the only boats which would be allowed to be kept in gardens would be comparatively small, open dinghies without their masts up, and would even exclude some of the larger types of open racing dinghy, which is not right. In fact, if prohibition orders were to be made, I believe that the proposed limils would be a little arbitrary and could lead to all kinds of measuring and policing difficulties.
I believe that the machinery for registering a complaint which could give rise to a prohibition order is a little clumsy and might lead to the unnecessary canvassing of support by the person complaining, support which could come from somebody who was living in a different street from that which is affected by the

375
boat in question. I also think that the prohibition order, if invoked—and it could, at the council's whim, involve a whole area and not just one particular street—would be more likely to discriminate against those who live in houses with smaller gardens, where a boat would be more obvious than in a larger garden. Boating today is a pastime enjoyed by people from all walks of life, and I do not see why the enjoyment gained by those who are perhaps not so well off should be so unnecessarily prejudiced in this way.
We are faced with far too much legislation today. The wide enabling powers envisaged in these Bills with respect to the banning of boats from private gardens are, I consider, unnecessary in relation to the amount of nuisance caused. I support the Instruction moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
3.22 p.m.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I should like to support the Instruction tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, which refers to the parking of boats. I believe this matter needs very careful scrutiny by the Select Committee. I suppose I should declare an interest; I am a member of the Royal Yachting Association and have been a lifelong dinghy sailor. I accept that most of the points I shall raise will be looked at very carefully by the Select Committee, but I believe it is important that they should be raised on the Floor of your Lordships' House so that more people should be aware of the powers these county councils intend to take in this clause.
First and foremost, I believe the clause infringes on the liberty of the individual. If an Englishman's home is his castle, I cannot see why he cannot keep a dinghy in his ditch. I accept that in a crowded isle we have to have restraints, but not, surely, on small boats in gardens. I accept that before the county councils can make such a ruling they have to fulfil very difficult conditions, not least that a complaint has to be made by neighbours. I submit that if neighbours did make such a complaint it would cause bad feeling. We surely have enough
376
trouble around without causing more. Alternatively, neighbours may feel that they do not want to take such action because of bad feeling, in which case no action would be taken; so I suggest it is, "heads I win and tails you lose".
I would also draw your Lordships' attention to the insidious creeping legislation that this clause could invoke. If councils got the power to stop boats being parked in gardens, as the clause is written in the Cheshire and West Yorkshire Bills this could include garages and back gardens. What would be the next stage? The West Midlands Bill included horse boxes, but I gather they thought better of it and have withdrawn the whole clause. This does not mean to say that in future some county council could not include horse boxes, and maybe cars, carrycots and prams.
Apart from the reasons concerning individual liberty, I believe the provisions regardings the preventing of the parking of boats in gardens to be impractical. The clause says "habitual". What does "habitual" mean? Are we to have a gang of snoopers looking around our gardens and garages to see if we have a little dinghy, 15 ft. long and 4 ft. 6 in. high? Then should this snooper—no doubt paid for by me through the rates—find that I am committing such a heinous offence, he takes me to court. In all four counties I am convicted of a criminal offence. In Cheshire I can be fined £200, but next door in Merseyside I can only be fined £50. In Cheshire and Yorkshire I catch it if my boat is in the garage or back garden, whereas in Merseyside I can keep the boat in the garage but not in my front garden. The law is complicated enough without going into all these problems.
Anyway, what happens if the county boundary goes through my house? How is the snooper to know if my boat is a boat? Will he bring a tape measure? A boat is not a boat if it is under 5 metres long and 1½ metres high. Also, what happens to a person who moves from one house to another house in another county with a dinghy, and there is a restriction on that street or area? How will he find out? I am sure the vendor will not advertise such a clause. This, I suggest, is another trap for the unwary layman.

377
I would conclude by reminding your Lordships that sailing, particularly dinghy sailing, has been since the war one of the fastest growing participant sports. I emphasise "participant" because I believe it must appeal to your Lordships. The result of this has been, and I hope it will continue to be, that more and more people will keep sailing dinghies. I hope that instead of leaving them in the club and dinghy park, which this clause would encourage, where they can be vandalised and be a responsibility to our overworked police and many voluntary officers of sailing clubs, they will be taken home, parked in the garden, repaired, painted and generally embellished with what they call now "go-fast gadgets", providing endless fascination for the owner.
I remind your Lordships that British dinghy racing is a success story; apart from providing industry, which even manages to survive the vicious 25 per cent. VAT, it employs many, which seems very important nowadays. We have a remarkable record for winning medals, not only at the Olympics but also at all the world dinghy championships. These clauses would seriously hinder such success, because it is in the garden that the dinghy sailor looks after his boat and titivates it. I therefore hope that your Lordships will support the Instruction moved by my noble friend Lord Sandys, that the Select Committee will see their way to altering the clause radically, and, in particular, will ascertain, in the words of the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees, whether there is a compelling local need for such a clause.
3.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LONDON: My Lords, I greatly welcome this Bill, as it relates to the County of Cheshire. It is not quite the same county that I knew when I left it four years ago, because since then they have cut off the Wirral peninsular and the East side of Stockport, Hyde, Stalybridge and Duckinfield, but at least there is still a County of Cheshire, which there would not have been if earlier proposals for local government reform had been accepted; we should have had no county to debate this afternoon.
I was Bishop of Chester for 18 years and lived in the City of Chester during that time. I formed a very great affection for
378
the county and the City, and a great admiration for the Cheshire County Council, which is, I believe, one of the most enterprising and one of the most efficient of all the local government bodies in this country. So this Bill, I think, reflects the efficiency and the idealism of the Cheshire County Council for what is a very beautiful and remarkable county.
Much of the Bill concerns the city of Chester itself. Some sad things have happened there. One of the first battles that I ever had to fight in your Lordships' House was to try to prevent the closing of the Chester Assay Office, for precious metals had been assayed in the City of Chester since Saxon times. I lost that battle, unfortunately, but I did witness the very real sense of responsibility which the City Fathers have for the City of Chester. Indeed I am grateful to the Bill for driving me back to look at the splendid Chester Study in Conservation prepared under Government auspices by Mr. Donald Insoll. That set a very high standard of development for the City of Chester.
The Bill deals in particular with four very remarkable characteristics of the City of Chester—the River Dee, the Roodee, The Rows and The Walls. The River Dee is not only very beautiful but also very historic. Whether the legend is true that it is the place where King Edwin was rowed by six Saxon Kings, it is not for me to say, but it seems certain that King Edwin assembled his fleet there which later on was to subdue Anglesey and the Isle of Man. It was navigable by ships of considerable size in comparatively modern times, as is illustrated by the presence of a church in the City of Chester dedicated to Saint Olave, which showed that the Norsemen came regularly to the City of Chester. It has a magnificent river front and there are always the dangers which are associated with water and waterfronts. The powers that will be given to the city here to preserve and to improve the amenities will mean that Chester will have one of the finest water amenities of any city in this country.
Similarly, noble Lords who know Chester will remember the remarkable space known as the Roodee. This needs to be controlled if only for the fact that those who are fond of horse racing want the Chester meeting, which is run on the

379
Roodee, to continue. The city has the unique quality and amenity of The Rows, the shops built on top of one another. No one knows their historic origins but they are a very remarkable feature, of great interest, and they bring many tourists to see them. They are also amenable to weather and to wear of every kind and there have been some rather sad instances of neglect. Therefore, if these are to be preserved it is important that there should be full powers in order to see that the stonework and the woodwork are properly provided for.
Finally, there are The Walls. I think Chester is the only city where, except for one very short space where you have to use your imagination, you can walk completely round the city walls. Here again, the inevitable ravages of time are at work and it is very important that the city should have the powers to see that the stonework is properly kept and that the walkway is made safe for pedestrians.
Much of the Bill also concerns the County of Cheshire. As I said, it has a very fine record of providing amenities for its citizens. I think particularly of Tatton Park, which was acquired by the county after the death of Lord Egerton of Tatton and which provides a most interesting and splendid house to which crowds of people go throughout the year. Cheshire was also an initiator in providing amenities for holidaymakers, such as picnic areas off the main road. I had the privilege of being a member of the committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Cobham, which studied the opportunities for sport and recreation. We were greatly impressed by the evidence which we had from the Cheshire County Council of the way in which they had provided places off main roads where motorists and walkers could enjoy themselves and see the countryside. One of the things which was borne in upon us in that committee was that so much of this depends on the initiative of local authorities. Therefore the powers that are given to the local authorities in this Bill will, I am sure, be very wisely used in this instance.
I could not see whether there is any direct power given in the Bill to the county regarding its waterways. Possibly this belongs to another authority and is
380
therefore not appropriate in this Bill. One of the main features of the County of Cheshire is its magnificent waterways—the Mersey, the Dee, the River Weaver, the Manchester Ship Canal and a fascinating series of canals generally. One of the most remarkable instances of Victorian engineering is the Anderson Lift outside Northwich which takes barges from one series of canals down and puts them into the River Weaver. One of the saddest things that happened while I was in Chester was the destruction by fire of the marvellous series of wharves and locks created outside Ellesmere Port by Telford. There was therefore destroyed one of the greatest achievements of the Victorian industrial engineers.
The County of Cheshire is particularly concerned with this provision to which the prayer of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is directed. Because there are so many waterways there are a great many boats and people who enjoy their time on the river. With my own personal interest in matters aquatic, I enter into this area of dispute with some diffidence, but I hardly think that the gruesome picture drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley—a name I may say greatly honoured in the County of Cheshire—will be fully justified. There is the other side of the picture. We have to think of the freedom of the neighbours of people who park very large boats in their garden, and whereas I have every sympathy with those who wish to do so there is another side to the story, and I am sure that the committee when it comes to examine it will have to take that into account.
There is one slightly sinister and ominous area of this Bill because it is dealing with the opportunities for the provision of employment. One does not normally think of the County of Cheshire as a place where there will be high unemployment, yet in certain areas with a high density of population there is a very real fear of what may happen in the immediate future years. Thus in Ellesmere Port and in Halton, which is part of Runcorn New Town, and in Chester itself it is reckoned that by 1986 some 50,000 to 80,000 new jobs will be needed in order to accommodate the school-leavers. That is why early in this Bill the county seeks to have powers for public works which will provide employment for young people.

381
Finally, there are one or two matters which are causing anxiety to certain interested bodies and organisations. First, there is Clause 30, regarding the regulation of processions, and this is of much concern to youth organisations such as Scouts, Guides, the Church Lads Brigade, the Boys Brigade and the Salvation Army, who are apt in their practice on certain occasions such as Sundays to march through the streets with their bands playing. On the East side of Cheshire they observe what is largely a Lancashire custom of walking at Whitsun and they would not want to conic under the restraints of police control. I am told that there are Amendments which will probably meet this problem, but I hope that those who are responsible for the scrutiny of the Bill will remember the number of entirely healthy and innocent organisations that have marching with flags and bands as part of their life and do not want to be restricted.
Again, in Clause 35, the Salvation Army is particularly anxious about possible restrictions on bands and music in buildings, because a lot of their worship is concerned with the making of a joyful noise to the Lord which might come under the constraints of this Bill if it is not worded very carefully. Here again, I believe that there is an Amendment which will meet the needs of organisations that are interested. Finally, there is Part VIII which regards the control of night clubs and cafés. Again, the Salvation Army and other charitable organisations very often have premises which are open between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. for the supply to the public of refreshments for consumption on or off the premises. In terms of the Salvation Army it means the provision of food, soup kitchens and so on, for people who are down and out.
Such organisations would not want to be restricted in doing their charitable work and I hope that those who scrutinise the Bill will bear in mind the very important work that is done by charitable organisations. However, these are mere matters of detail in a Bill which commends itself by being both easy and interesting to read. Knowing Cheshire as I do, I have every confidence that these powers will be used wisely by those to whom they are given and for the benefit of a very beautiful and distinguished county.
3.40 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I wish to speak in general terms on all four Bills, but I should like to say how interested I was in the fascinating account of the ancient City of Chester which was given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London. I sincerely hope that the Cheshire County Council Bill will give full satisfaction to that city.
I should like to confine my remarks entirely to those parts of these Bills which deal with the parking of boats in gardens of dwelling-houses, and to add my support to the Instruction on the Order Paper. However, first I must declare some interest in this matter because not only have I been a member of the Royal Yachting Association for many years—and, as your Lordships know, that association is one of the Petitioners against these clauses in the Bills—but I own a small sailing boat which would come within the scope of these clauses. I must say that I have no plans at present to lay up my boat in my garden during the winter, nor have I any connection with any of the four counties promoting these Bills.
The clauses concerned are, in my opinion, unsatisfactory from two points of view, and I should like to deal briefly with each. First, the regulations will discriminate against one particular form of recreation which is gaining in popularity every year and will cause hardship and extra expense to those many yachtsmen who already own small boats and who wish to lay them up for the winter at home.
The regulations, which are all unanimous on the subject of size, all concern boats of not more than 5 metres in length and not more than 1.5 metres high or, to put it in plain English, 16 ft. 4 in. long and 4 ft. 10 in. high. In the case of a cabincruiser—that is, a boat which is partially or totally enclosed—in many cases the size is even smaller than the one that I have described. There are many such small cabin cruisers on the market and the definition of a cabin cruiser is anything that is suitable for human habitation. Of course, going afloat on a river or a canal, or even at sea in the summer months, can be done in an extremely small boat.

383
This is exactly the size of craft which could be trailed home behind the family car and then stored at home during the winter months. It must be done in many cases because not only is it impractical to keep a boat on its summer moorings during the winter, but the commercial boat parks around our coast and islands are in short supply and very expensive. Furthermore, for many yachtsmen it is a matter of pride and pleasure to lay up, maintain, repair and then repaint, re-varnish and fit out their boats for the next season; and where is it more pleasant to do that than in one's own garden?
It is often said that we are becoming a nation of spectators, and yet here is an active and ever popular pastime which gives pleasure and recreation to thousands. Indeed, the Royal Yachting Association now represents 1,400 yacht clubs and 56,000 individual members, and, if I may say so, it does so with great efficiency for which very many of us have a great deal to be grateful.
My second reason why these clauses are unsatisfactory is that, although they will affect many people, they are being introduced piecemeal across the country. Even in the four Bills which we are debating this afternoon there are wide differences, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley and also by my noble friend Lord Greenway. In the case of the County of Merseyside the summary conviction for this offence—if that is indeed what it is—is £50, whereas in the other three Bills it is £200. In all the Bills, with one exception, the relevant clause contains the right of the offender to appeal to the magistrates. The exception is the County of West Yorkshire, in which there appears to be no right of appeal to a magistrate. Most of the clauses make it an offence to park a boat in the front garden only, but West Yorkshire includes the whole garden, both back and front.
Some of the Bills refer to curtilages of dwelling-houses, which I think must include a garage or a shed. Yet a 16 ft. boat could easily be stored in one of those without any inconvenience to anyone. I looked up in a dictionary the definition of a curtilage. It is described as:
"An area attached to and containing a dwelling-house and its outbuildings.".
384
Here again there is very wide variety among the Bills as to whether a given number of neighbours living within a limited area of the offending boat must initiate a complaint or whether that can be done exclusively by the council concerned.
I appreciate that local authorities will wish to have powers to control such matters, and that to park a very large boat in the front garden will cause inconvenience to neighbours, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said. However, I wonder whether he has given any thought to the fact that perhaps his rowing boat may also be limited—I believe he is a very keen oar.
I feel that these clauses as drafted go far too wide, and if enacted will infringe the rights of householders with gardens and will impose hardship and unnecessary expense on those who enjoy this means of recreation. Therefore, I am pleased to support the Instruction moved by my noble friend Lord Sandys, that the Select Committee dealing with these four Bills should give special consideration to those clauses in each Bill which deal with the parking of boats in gardens of dwelling-houses.
3.47 p.m.
Lord WISE: My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken so far have referred to the common clauses regarding the parking of boats in private gardens. I have only a small sailing dinghy which does not come within the ambit of these clauses. However, my sons have a rather more sophisticated racing dinghy, which I believe is about 5 centimetres over the specified length and presumably they could find themselves breaking the law. I wish to speak very briefly on these common clauses, but not as regards boats—as regards caravans. I should perhaps declare an interest because I am a member of the Caravan Club and indeed own a caravan which, when it is not in use during the summer months, is parked in a courtyard alongside my home.
If the clauses relating to the caravans parked in private gardens are put into effect let us consider the ensuing difficulties for owners who, by necessity, have to park their touring caravans on their own land. That surely is not a privilege that they enjoy, but must be a right, which I think has existed for years

385
and which, with respect, I consider should continue. First, they would find a great shortage of suitable storage facilities. In fact, I would consider it almost impossible to find a storage park, and even if one could do so it is bound to be expensive. If one has space in one's own garden or property, surely that is an expense which one should not be expected to bear.
Again, in many instances, storage parks are, by their very nature, inadequately supervised with the consequential risks of vandalism and theft. As a rule, caravans that are parked in people's gardens are used primarily at weekends and for holidays. If a family wants to go away for a weekend and they do not have their caravan at home, first, they have to collect it from the park, wherever that is, and then they have to load it with all kinds of things. Backwards and forwards they go, and it is quite a hazardous task if they have to leave their caravan on the road outside. The same thing happens when they arrive home on the Sunday evening. It then has to be emptied. Mum puts the children to bed and dad has to tow it 20 or 25 miles to its park. Surely that is a hardship which they should not have to bear. I am certain that in those circumstances they would soon give up their caravan. One other point bothers me as regards these clauses. I understand that objectors will be given an opportunity to be heard by a person appointed by the council, and the council would then consider the evidence given. But—and this worries me—there is then no right of appeal.
We must appreciate that caravanning is becoming increasingly popular. There are a number of reasons for that, not least of which is the fact that it is a wonderful family recreation, enabling people to get away from the cities and towns to enjoy, as a family unit, all the pleasures that the countryside has to offer. Surely that is a good thing. It is unthinkable that people who have strived and saved in order to equip themselves for this family pastime—this family enterprise—might find themselves victimised for so doing. Should not people be encouraged rather than discouraged to enjoy with their families happy, wholesome, country pursuits?—for sadly our cities are becoming more and more disturbed as each year goes by.
386
If your Lordships give these Bills a Second Reading and they go before a Select Committee, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and implore that the Committee examines these clauses carefully. Apart from the aspect of rights of the individual, which is obviously of paramount importance, in so far as they relate to caravans, hundreds of people could be denied family recreation and holidays of their choice. I consider that that would not simply be regrettable; it could well be a tragedy.
3.53 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I, too, want to refer to a new point, one which concerns neither boats nor caravans. I should like to speak about Clause 50 in the Merseyside Bill, which has the formidable title of "Powers of search and arrest". From the wording of that clause I deduce that its purpose is to effect an extension to Merseyside of Section 66 of the Metropolitan Police Act 1839, known familiarly as the "Powers of stop, search and detain". If properly used, those powers are not oppressive and they are a most valuable method of gaining information about criminals and their movements—something never more important than it is today. And, if so, there may be a case for extending these powers to cover the whole country, in which case I submit that it should be done by a Government Bill.
But I do not think that powers such as these should be extended to other areas in a piecemeal fashion. That would not seem to me—and I suggest that most noble Lords would take the same view—to be the best way to legislate. It may be that the Liverpool Police have had these powers for some time, and so it could be represented that this is no more than a re-enactment, which would make a big difference. But surely under the Bill as drafted there must be an element of extension, because today's Merseyside is much greater than the pre-reorganisation Liverpool police area.
I notice that under Part XV of the Bill there are clauses which are applicable to parts of the area only. It may well be that Clause 50 should be redrafted and maybe there is a case for re-enacting this power so as to cover Liverpool prior to the reorganisation—or, indeed,

387
Liverpool and Bootle where the powers were previously in effect—but we should not extend them greatly without careful scrutiny. The police generally have other and similar powers under the Vagrancy Acts, the Town Police Clauses Act and under the common law, but none of those covers quite the same ground as Section 66 of the 1839 Act.
I hope that the Committee will look closely into this clause, not with any idea of depriving the Merseyside Police of useful power—because today we certainly cannot afford to do that—but with the object of ensuring that the principles involved are studied and the most acceptable solution sought. We should also not forget that the Statute Law Revision Committee is about to look into this very area of our law, which may make it untimely for us to extend this power—even if there is merit in it—to other areas at this time.
3.57 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise to the House for not having put my name down to speak. I have been away for some time and I noticed something in the Bill on which I should say a few words as I live in the West Midlands area. I wish to take only about two or three minutes of your Lordships' time. I did not know that the noble Lord, Lord Wise, would raise the issue of caravans, but I entirely endorse what he has said, because the Bill deals mostly with people who live in streets. Were I a lawyer and dealing simply with the semantics of this clause, I could wheel a horse and cart through the entire clause because it deals only with people living in streets.
If a noble Lord has a lodge and the entrance to the noble Lord's great and vast property is at the end of a street in which my poor brother lives, and he can see his Lordship's horsebox through his bedroom window, which is less than 100 metres away, am I entitled to challenge the noble Lord because he is destroying the amenities of the humble street in which my brother lives? I consider from the loose way in which this clause is worded that I could do so.
Nevertheless, what is a street? Is a street an avenue? If I happen to live in an avenue where they are cutting down
388
the elms, can I be challenged as a local bumptious councillor about having a horsebox? In fact, I would not have a horsebox; it would be a box for my greyhounds. But as an old collier am I entitled to have a greyhound box here? I used to see the greyhounds run by my uncle on the race-course in Caerphilly many years ago. That does not appear in the Bill. I should think that I could.
Consequently, what is a boat? I have a big rubber dinghy with which I have a lot of fun. Might I hang that up as a collier's bath used to be hung up on a hook outside the back door? Furthermore, my house is adjacent to a canal and I have had a piece cut out of the canal to run into my garden. It is in the definition of "curtilage" that the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, looked up so carefully, but on my curtilage the canal comes within 20 yards of my back door, and there I have a boat. Who will waddle up and charge Davies of Leek because he is destroying the amenities around the district? In other words, where are we going?
Today we live in a world that loves to pass legislation and debate the right of entry to which the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred. Consequently, I completely endorse the constructive criticisms that have been made. I promised not to delay the House and I have been exactly three minutes. I think that this noble House should look carefully at this legislation and uphold the constructive criticisms that have been made today.
4. p.m.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, I, too, must apologise for not having put down my name as a speaker, but I have only decided to speak since I came into the Chamber this afternoon and heard the discussion that was going on. I am a resident of West Yorkshire—I have been all my life—and I want to stress that this West Yorkshire Bill which is before us today is very important indeed not only to the metropolitan County Council of West Yorkshire but to the five metropolitan district councils who also support everything which is in this Bill.
I shall speak for only about two minutes. I understand that we are discussing the Instructions which are to be moved by

389
the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. He will be instructing the Select Committee to look carefully at the clauses relating to boats, caravans, and heavy commercial vehicles. I am quite certain that the Select Committee will look carefully at all the clauses in all the Bills because they always do. Therefore, if we accept the Instructions which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is giving, I hope it will not be construed that all Members of this House are in agreement with taking out all these clauses completely, because I think there are two sides to this matter.
First, so far as the West Yorkshire metropolitan county council Bill is concerned, it is not only concerned with caravans and boats but also with heavy commercial vehicles. I would say to my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek that there is all the difference in the world between a heavy commercial vehicle and his little rubber dinghy that he might have been hanging at the side of his house. I also want to stress that it does not say in this clause that all boats, all caravans, and all commercial vehicles are to be prohibited. I think that that would be unreasonable. It would be very unreasonable to prohibit all boats and caravans from every front garden of every street, but it would be equally unreasonable to allow in all circumstances every caravan, every commercial vehicle and every boat which everybody wants to put in their front gardens because in considering freedom there are always two people concerned. There is the person who wants to do something, and the person who has to put up with whatever it is the other person is doing.
All that this clause says, if passed, is that we shall be giving powers to the local authorities to consider each case on its merits. I would put to noble Lords that householders still need permission to build a garage in their gardens. If that is so, it is not unreasonable that there should be some control—I do not say all control—on these other vehicles which might be put in front gardens. I understand that this Instruction is going to be accepted. While the House might accept it, I do not want it to be construed that all of those who are accepting it agree with the point of view which has been put; that is, that every boat, every caravan, and every commercial vehicle shall be allowed regardless of the circumstances.
4.4 p.m.
The DUKE of ATHOLL: My Lords, I should like particularly to draw attention to the second half of the Instruction of my noble friend Lord Sandys. It is important that clauses which are common to all four, or even to two or three, of these Bills are eventually enacted by Public Bills. It would reduce the weight of these Bills, to which my noble friend Lord Sandys has already drawn attention, and also have the advantage that things of this kind would be universal throughout the country, and people who moved from one area to another would not find themselves up against restrictions and regulations which only apply to the county to which they have moved.
I hope that the Lord Chairman, who has already drawn attention to the common clauses in the Bills, will bring what pressure he can on the Government to introduce legislation to make Public Bills of very many of these common clauses. Many of them are perfectly suitable for Public Bills. It would not only reduce the difficulty and complexity of these particular Bills but also help to reduce the complexities of the ones we are bound to get before 1984.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I too, like other noble Lords who have spoken recently, must apologise for not having put down my name to speak in this debate. I did not do so for two reasons. First, I was not sure I would be able to get out of the door last week when I was preparing what I might have said and, secondly, I thought that the point that I was going to raise, which was an agricultural one, would be fully covered, particularly from these Benches. I am referring to the West Midlands County Council Bill, Clause 12, the power to use lands for agricultural purposes, which of course is not common to all the four Bills we are discussing this afternoon.
It is an accepted precedent in the horticultural industry anyway, in which of course I should declare an interest in this debate, that local councils in the shape of their parks departments are normally expected to have a nursery and to fulfil certainly many of their plant requirements from that nursery, and that this is a perfectly right and proper thing to do.

391
Unfortunately this Bill extends such powers as may be needed to fulfil this, as can be seen in lines 14 and 15 on page 9 of the Bill, where it says that the councils wished not only to grow horticultural produce but also agricultural produce, and also to dispose of them through the normal wholesale trade channels.
I would say, from my point of view anyway, that this is surely a case of a council going into business. Is this something that we in Parliament should allow? Obviously the horticultural trade is rather up in arms about this, and I should think that one of the Petitions to which the Lord Chairman referred is undoubtedly one from the National Farmers' Union. I should like to take this opportunity of bringing to your Lordships' attention this particular, though I agree rather narrow, point.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I would not have attempted to take the time of the House had it not occurred to me that I am probably the only person in the Chamber now who sat on the Select Committee under the late Lord Reading on the Kent County Council Bill a good many years ago. It took us some time because there were over 400 clauses. But a point which we made as firmly as we could, and therefore we were not entirely popular with the Government Department concerned, was that it was quite wrong that you should include in local government Bills any matter which ought to be dealt with, if dealt with at all, by a proper Government Bill. It was the business of the Government Department to weed the garden, to keep in touch with the local authorities, as of course they do, to see that anything for which there was a general demand was included in a Government Bill—an amending Bill to whatever Act it might be—and not to pretend that it could not be done because there was no Parliamentary time, since that is not a matter for a Government Department but a matter for Parliament itself. For these reasons, I should like to reinforce what the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, said, and hope that when the time comes someone will look at what we said on the Kent County Council Bill, and see that the mistake is not allowed to occur again.
4.9 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for all your Lordships' contributions to the debate on these four Bills. Perhaps in particular I might be allowed to welcome back the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, after his illness. I thought he showed how effective a short speech could be. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for moving his Instructions in a reasonable and moderate way. He made one point that I should like to reinforce, and that was the value of the work that your Lordships do on these Select Committees. I know that this is going to place a burden upon many of your Lordships, especially at a time when the Scotland Bill is going through the House, and also when so many of you give up such a lot of time anyway on other Committees. I think particularly of the European Community Committees. I am extremely grateful to your Lordships, and I hope you will volunteer willingly for this additional chore.
Most of the remarks that have been made this afternoon have related to the Instructions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, concerning the parking of boats in gardens. It would be improper for me to comment on the merits of this proposal and I certainly do not want to enter into an argument with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, as to when a boat is not a boat. I shall leave that to the Select Committee because, as I explained in my opening remarks, this is one of the provisions which is opposed in all four Bills and it will therefore go to a Select Committee considering the opposed common clauses, and their consideration will be reinforced by the fact that, if these Instructions are passed by the House today, they will have to consider those as well.
Your Lordships may also be interested to know that the Select Committee will have available to it the Hansard of today's debate, so all that noble Lords have said today will be available to the Committee, and that it is normal for such a Select Committee to make a special report in the event of an Instruction being moved. I hope that that will reassure noble Lords who are concerned about these provisions regarding boats.

393
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, also spoke on these clauses but on the subject of caravans rather than boats. I can assure them that this provision is also opposed by, among others, the Caravan Club and the National Caravan Council, so that, once again, these will go to the Select Committee considering the common clauses and will be carefully considered in the light of everything that has been said this afternoon.
The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, in a most eloquent and interesting speech about Cheshire and the City of Chester drew particular attention to those clauses which deal with processions, bands, music, night clubs and cafes. As he correctly said, these are clauses which are opposed, by, among others, the Salvation Army, the Scouts Association and the Girl Guides Association, so again they will go to a Select Committee and that Committee will be able to consider the whole matter in depth. I may add that I am sure that the Promoters of these Bills have every sympathy with the points that were made by the right reverend Prelate, and I am informed that that are considering whether they can introduce some form of Amendment at the Committee stage which would meet the points he brought up.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, referred to a point which was different from anything else that has been raised—namely, the question of police powers in the Merseyside Bill. I am grateful to him for having, from his deep knowledge of police matters, drawn attention to this particular subject. This is not a clause that is opposed—there is no petition against this clause—and therefore it will go to the Committee which is considering the unopposed clauses; and, as I am to be the Chairman of that Committee, I can assure him that we will give all that he said the most careful consideration and will look at this clause very carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, found another provision to which to refer which had not been touched on before—Clause 12 of the West Midlands Bill—and this, too, is unopposed; the National Farmers' Union has not put in a petition against this clause, but I can also assure him that we will look at it when it comes to
394
considering it as an unopposed clause. I thank the noble Duke, the Duke of Atholl, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman; I have no influence whatever with the Government, but there are Government spokesmen here and I am sure that they will have taken to heart what both noble Lords have said.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clause 26, in so far as it relates to boats, to satisfy themselves—

(1) that it does not constitute an unnecessary and discriminatory interference by local authority with the rights of the individual nor impose unjustifiable hardship on any individual now or in the future resident in the area; and

(2) that the powers sought are suitable for inclusion in a Private Bill and that the question of amenity is one which ought to be treated, if at all, as a matter of criminal sanction rather than of planning law.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.

COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clauses 20 and 130, in so far as they relate to boats, to satisfy themselves—

395

(1) that they do not constitute an unnecessary and discriminatory interference by local authority with the rights of the individual nor impose unjustifiable hardship on any individual now or in the future resident in the area; and

(2) that the powers sought are suitable for inclusion in a Private Bill.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clause 112, in so far as it relates to boats, to satisfy themselves—

(1) that it does not constitute an unnecessary and discriminatory interference by local authority with the rights of the individual nor impose unjustifiable hardship on any individual now or in the future resident in the area; and

(2) that the powers sought are suitable for inclusion in a Private Bill and that the question of amenity is one which ought to be treated, if at all, as a matter of criminal sanction rather than of planning law.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.

WEST YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clause 99, in so far as it relates to boats, to satisfy themselves—

(1) that it does not constitute an unnecessary and discriminatory interference by local authority with the rights of the individual nor impose unjustifiable hardship on any individual now or in the future resident in the area; and

(2) that the powers sought are suitable for inclusion in a Private Bill and that the question of amenity is one which ought to be treated, if at all, as a matter of criminal sanction rather than of planning law.—(Lord Sandys.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bill committed to a Select Committee.

TRIBUNALS OF INQUIRY (EVIDENCE) ACT 1921
4.16 p.m.
The Lord CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones)The Lord CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones) rose to move to resolve, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, to what extent there were lapses from accepted standards of commercial or professional conduct or of public administration in relation to the operations of the Crown Agents as financiers on own-account in the years 1967–74 described in the report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Crown Agents (HC 48 of 1977). The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, following the debate in another place on the report of the Fay Committee on 5th December last year, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister announced on 8th December the Government's decision to establish a tribunal of inquiry under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921.
The Fay Report brought out with admirable clarity the circumstances that led to the need to make special financial assistance available to the Crown Agents.

397
The Government concluded that a further inquiry should be held to consider where the blame lies; and it was proposed in another place that this should be a public inquiry. In these circumstances, the Government are proposing to set up a tribunal under the 1921 Act which will have the ample powers given by that Act to carry out the thorough investigation of all matters that are relevant in this unhappy matter. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 8th December, the purpose of the tribunal will be to deal with lapses in accepted standards of public administration. The Government believe that the concept of "accepted standards" will make clear that the Tribunal is not required to adopt criteria that are either so restricted as to exculpate everyone who was not in breach of some legal duty, or so wide as to set unreasonably high standards.
The inquisitorial powers of tribunals set up under the 1921 Act are quite different from those of the ordinary courts and they require special safeguards for people whose conduct is in question. One safeguard lies in the composition of the tribunal. The White Paper of 1973, giving the then Government's response to the report of the Royal Commission under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, accepted the principle that the chairman should be a person holding high judicial office. It also expressed the view that when a tribunal is inquiring into the conduct of members of a particular service, profession or calling, or where it is required to deal with issues of a specialised, technical nature, it should include members other than lawyers with experience or qualifications relevant to the subject of the inquiry. The Government have followed these principles in considering the membership of the tribunal, which will comprise a judge of the High Court and two distinguished non-legal members.
Other safeguards are to be found in the six cardinal principles set out in the Royal Commission's report. These are: first, before any person becomes involved in an inquiry, the tribunal must be satisfied that there are circumstances which affect him and which the tribunal proposes to investigate. Secondly, before any person who is involved in an inquiry is called as a witness, he should be informed in advance of allegations made against him and of the substance of the evidence in support of
398
them. Thirdly, in the first place he should have adequate opportunity of preparing his case and of being assisted by legal advisers; and, in the second place, his legal expenses should normally be met out of public funds. Fourthly, he should have the opportunity of being examined by his own solicitor or counsel and of stating his case in public at the inquiry. Fifthly, any material witness he wishes called at the inquiry should, if reasonably practicable, be heard. Sixthly, he should have the opportunity of testing, by cross-examination conducted by his own solicitor or counsel, any evidence which may affect him.
The Government endorse these principles, as did the previous Government in their White Paper of 1973. The Home Secretary will be drawing them to the attention of the tribunal and I am confident that the tribunal will have full regard to them.
With regard to the third principle, concerning legal representation for those involved in the inquiry, I should make it clear that, since the 1921 Act has not yet been amended in the way that the Salmon Commission proposed, the decision whether to authorise legal representation for any person rests with the tribunal itself under Section 2(b) of the 1921 Act. The Government will invite the tribunal to be guided in this matter by the Salmon Commission's recommendations as accepted in the 1973 White Paper, and to adopt the practice envisaged in that Paper of ascertaining and prescribing the particular issues in which an applicant for representation is to be regarded as an interested person. It is also intended to authorise the tribunal to announce at the preliminary hearing that the Government will be prepared to pay on an ex gratia basis the reasonable costs to individuals of legal representation allowed by the tribunal in relation to the issues prescribed by it, and subject to any recommendations the tribunal may make.
Your Lordships know the background to the inquiry, which was so clearly set out in the Fay Report. Much time has already elapsed since the events occurred which are to be investigated, and your Lordships may think that the tribunal should begin its work as soon as possible. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved to resolve, That it is expedient that a Tribunal be established for inquiring into a definite matter of urgent public importance, that is to say, to what extent there were lapses from accepted standards of commercial or professional conduct or of public administration in relation to the operations of the Crown Agents as financiers on own-account in the years 1967–74 described in the report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Crown Agents (HC 48 of 1977).—(The Lord Chancellor.)
4.24 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I think the whole House will be especially grateful to the noble and learned Lord who is sitting on the Woolsack for the very detailed and precise statement which he has made on behalf of the Government. It is especially pleasing to have details of this particular tribunal spelled out to us, since the House will be aware of the very widespread concern felt throughout the country, in Parliament and elsewhere, such as in the City, and I daresay in many countries all over the world, as a result of this particular case. But our main query from these Benches is whether or not the scope of the proposed tribunal will include such matters as breach of duty or negligence in those bodies which were mentioned by the Minister in her Statement in another place on 1st December 1977. For your Lordships' information, these organisations would include Crown Agents themselves, the Ministry of Overseas Development, the Treasury, the Bank of England and, of course, the Exchequer and the Audit Department.
This is a formidable list, and I think it right that such bodies should indeed come under the detailed scrutiny of a tribunal of inquiry for four main reasons. First, the scale of the losses was spectacular enough, and justified concern was felt over whether adequate provision had been made to cover these losses. Secondly, the faults in the various systems which ought to operate within such bodies as I have mentioned were indeed disturbing. One example of such a gap in the system of safeguarding funds and investment was given by the Minister when she pointed out that the accounts for the Crown Agents' operations for the year 1972 (as she put it, "such as they were")
400
were made available only in January 1975. The House will surely be aware of my especial interest in the accountancy profession, but there can be no doubt that any method of control, especially over financial matters—matters which can be detailed, complex and very byzantine—requires that any system which is thus overworked should be revised.
The third reason why we are very pleased about this tribunal is, as should be pointed out, that the tribunal need not necessarily be seen in this House, or indeed in the Press, as any form of a witchhunt. Indeed, the Fay Report stressed continually that the causes of this catastrophe concerning the Crown Agents were due to the actions, and indeed the inaction, of individuals coupled with a defective system. Again I quote:
"The story was one of incompetence rather than misconduct."
Thus, no one who is likely to be called before the tribunal to give any evidence has anything to lose at all. Lastly, we believe that a tribunal will do much to reassure the House, and indeed the Ministry of Overseas, Development and those nations and organisations to whom Fay refers as principals, that such defective systems as I have briefly mentioned will be improved and altered, so that matters cannot run out of hand again on such a scale in this field of investment and banking.
Throughout the debate in another place which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has mentioned, on the 5th December, the Minister defended the ability of the proposed Aarvold Commission to examine how and where management systems had broken down, and how these defects would be solved; but in the end it was decided that a tribunal under the 1921 Act would be the correct method whereby the flaws which are displayed in the Fay Report could be removed. The Minister herself pleaded that such a tribunal could take as long as two years to issue its final report. Indeed, my honourable and learned friend in another place, Sir Michael Havers, likened the tribunal to a blunderbuss. I do not think the noble and learned Lord would necessarily agree with that, in spite of the fact that it came from a member of his learned and distinguished profession. But certainly Sir Michael

401
mentioned the Salmon Report and its dissatisfaction with the Profumo ad hoc tribunal, and also its recommendation that an inquiry under the 1921 Act would be the only correct, satisfactory and reasonable vehicle whereby such grave faults as had occurred then, and as had been shown in the debate in another place, I believe, could be set right.
My honourable friend the Member for Shoreham in another place said during the course of his speech in that particular debate:
"… there is great distrust about Whitehall and about Parliament …" —[Official Report, Commons, 5/12/77; col. 1087.]
I presume he meant in connection with the level of control exercised by Parliament in this special case. I can assure your Lordships that my honourable friend is entirely correct, and not just in this special case, because each weekend I am informed by members of the public, as I am sure many of your Lordships are, that they do not believe us in Parliament to be capable of supervising even the day-to-day running of their lives, let alone such byzantine affairs as are outlined in the Fay Report. I believe there is much reason in these arguments, presented certainly to me and, I am sure, to many of your Lordships, by members of the public. For this and many other reasons, it seems to us that the blunderbuss mechanism of the tribunal of inquiry is, on balance, more desirable than the more informal and briefer proceedings of a Commission, such as the proposed Aarvold Commission, and especially in this case. That is why we thank the noble and learned Lord and are very pleased to support his Motion.
4.30 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, from these Benches, too, we should like to give a welcome to the very wide terms of reference of the tribunal which have been read out by the noble and learned Lord. We are also pleased to hear the safeguards that he has given to those individuals who are concerned or who will be giving evidence. I think that this tribunal will be seen, whether we like it or not, as a post-mortem because of the time that has elapsed since the events came about which were described in the Fay Committee Report. All postmortems are ugly; this tribunal will be no
402
exception. I endorse what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell: that the public are not crying for blood here, but for information and to make sure that these mistakes will not or cannot occur again perhaps on the same scale. I think that this tribunal can go a long way towards putting right a lot of misunderstandings—certainly in the minds of the public. We should look on this as an opportunity and I think it will take a long time.
My Lords, perhaps I, too, may ask a question for clarification on two of the points that the noble and learned Lord has given us this afternoon. The first comes under the heading of lapses from the accepted standards of public administration. I do not believe that we should go into investigating all the Departments concerned and which were covered by the Fay Committee. But I think that the Auditor-General's Department should be looked at very carefully and consideration given as to whether it is the most efficient way of looking after the books of the nation.
Secondly, I should like to think that this would be an opportunity to consider the constitution of the Public Accounts Committee. When one considers there are hardly (I think) a dozen qualified accountants in another place, and that the civil servants who come up before the Public Accounts Committee have taken three or four months in preparing their case, it is difficult to put blame on Members of another place for not discovering sooner or, indeed, at all, some of the things that were specified by the Fay Committee. I hope that we can look at this constructively and look forward to the future; that there will not be any similar tribunals of this nature.
I mention this because it worries me that the Fay Committee had to call upon outside agencies, agencies outside Government, in order to get the figures right to present them before Parliament. I think that this is an indication of some of the weakness or, possibly, the lack of accountancy skills in the Government's fiscal department. I think that this is an area in which, if this tribunal does its work well, the public can be reassured and satisfied, as taxpayers, at the way in which their funds are being kept and the books looked after. But if the tribunal fails to do this, I think that the

403
misunderstandings, doubts and concerns expressed by the general public will not be decreased but greatly increased to an extent which could lead to a very serious situation.
4.34 p.m.
The EARL of SELKIRK: My Lords, as the Fay Report says, this matter was raised in the first place in your Lordships' House. If I may, I should like to remind the House of the situation as it was seen in August 1971. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, if he were here, would endorse what I am going to say. For some time it had been known that rather odd things had been happening in the Crown Agents' business. The purpose of bringing it up was, first, to alert the Government to the anxiety felt and, secondly, to try to find out whether there was a public liability. There were also some very full and forthright articles by Mr. Charles Raw, chiefly in the Guardian newspaper; so there was no lack of information at that time.
When we come to look at the Fay Report we find this. These things were fully known two years before in the Department concerned. They were known in the Treasury; they were known at the Bank of England. In the early part of 1970, the Law Officer of the Foreign Office said quite clearly that the ultimate liability would lie with the public purse. I believe that this really is a matter which is not concerned with any individual; and the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said this. It is probably more a question of incompetence than it is one of misconduct; but I think that it is a matter of very general concern. It is the administration as a whole which has not faced up to the responsibilities of carrying and looking after very large sums indeed of money which they now hold from the taxpayers of this country. There are many taxpayers who have difficulty in meeting their liabilities as they stand. There are a great many organisations today which are vaguely and loosely connected with the Government, for which, nonetheless, the Government have a degree of responsibility.
I do not think it is purely a question of accountancy. It is one of initiative and of appreciation of responsibility which,
404
in this case, has been badly lacking. Here we are, eight years after the event and probably it will be ten years before we hear that has happened. I am particularly glad that this Motion which the noble and learned Lord has put forward deals with the administration. I believe that it is basically a question of administration which has gone fairly wrong. I am not unaware of the complicated nature of the Crown Agents' position; but that does not alter the fact that once it was known in the Government that ultimate responsibility would lie with the general public somebody or some body should have taken more drastic and definite action. That, I hope, is what will be looked at. I believe that the noble and learned Lord will confirm that that is well within the compass of the terms which he has moved.
4.37 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, noble Lords have pointed out the importance and gravity of the matters that fall for consideration by the tribunal and it is for the reason of reassuring and informing the public that the terms of reference have been drafted as widely as they have been; because they call for inquiry into the extent to which there were lapses from the accepted standards of commercial or professional conduct on the part of those involved and lapses from accepted standards of public administration. I venture to think that all the matters to which noble Lords have referred as requiring study and investigation will be covered by the terms of reference which I have moved.
It is the case that in the past the proceeding of some of the earlier tribunals of inquiry have caused grave concern. One could not have been unaware of the fact that in some previous proceedings many innocent persons had their reputations damaged and the closing years of their lives ruined by accusations which are not proven and not justified. It is for this reason that, first of all, the Royal Commission was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Salmon and why I have emphasised the importance of complying with the six cardinal principles which were identified in that report and to which the tribunal's attention will be drawn.

405
My Lords, I take comfort further in the fact that, as I have said—and the names of the members of the tribunal will be announced shortly—the chairman will be a High Court judge with experience in these matters, assisted by distinguished colleagues who will not themselves be lawyers but who will have had considerable administrative experience in relevant fields. Accordingly, I hope that this tribunal will be able to do what noble Lords have indicated: to inform the public as fully as possible as to what went wrong and as to where the responsibility lay. It will not of course fall to the tribunal to impose any penalties or punishments, disciplinary or otherwise. If any such matters fall for action, they will have to be considered in the light of the findings of the recommendations of the tribunal in due course. Accordingly, therefore, I am glad what is now proposed has the approval of your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL [H.L.]
Report received.

DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS AND MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [H.L.]
4.41 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 9 [Powers of court to commit children to care of local authority]:
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 10, leave out lines 22 to 24.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the first Amendment on the Marshalled List this afternoon is, I venture to think, the only one with which the House is going to have any trouble. I say that because the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has taken an enormous amount of trouble with his advisers to discuss and write to those of us who have put down Amendments. I find a gratifying amount of agreement arising between myself and the noble Lord and I think that others of my
406
noble friends are also satisfied with some of the Amendments that the noble Lord is putting forward.
However, on Clause 9 a question is still unanswered. If I may briefly describe the question again, it is this: Why, when there is a power to make a care order placing a child in the care of a local authority, may a court not make it after the child is 17? It was put to me at the end of his speech at the Committee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell (this matter was covered at columns 1272 to 1276 of the proceedings reported in Hansard on 14th February): What does the court do with a child after it is 17? I said that that was exactly the question that I had asked the noble Lord and he had not answered it. I have not yet had an answer.
The second part of Clause 9(6) is the "odd man out" in this Bill. The jurisdiction over children arises under Clause 7(2)(a) and continues to the age of 18. Custody ends at 18 under Clause 7(5). Under Clause 8(3), a supervision order ends at 18. Under the first part of Clause 9(6), a local authority care order ends at 18. In Clause 9(4)(b) the age is 16, and that is for the purposes or orders relating to contributions and applications by the child himself. He may do that at 16. In Clause 16, there are provisions which enable things to happen when the child reaches the age of 16, 18 or 21. Under Clause 16(11), at the age of 16 a child can apply for the variation of an order on his own account.
These are the up-to-date age limits. Sixteen is now the school leaving age. Eighteen is now the age of majority. I suppose that, if one wants to find some justification for 21, which only occurs once in the Bill, it is the former age of majority and perhaps it is as good as any other on which to put a top limit. Nowhere else in this legislation is 17 mentioned. I ask the Government, Why? Why have they persisted in saying that between the ages of 17 and 18 no court may make a care order on a child? I was told that this was merely consonant with other legislation on the subject. I was referred to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, Section 43(4). It is perfectly true that that is in exactly the same terms as Clause 9(6) of this Bill. It does not say why.
The 1973 Act was the result of a consolidation Bill, and one of the prime duties of the Consolidation Bills Cornmittee—I remember this well because I used to be the chairman of is— to make sure that there is no change in the law. On that occasion the Committee—not under my chairmanship—did their job properly because they reproduced faithfully Section 36(4) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965. If one looks at the origins of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1965, one finds that that, too, resulted from a consolidation Bill. But it had Amendments made to it, and I am led to believe that the Amendment that now represents most of Section 36 of that repealed Act derived from Cmnd 9678, which was the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce under the chairmanship of the late Lord Morton of Henryton, which reported to Parliament on 1st December 1955. One is referred to paragraphs 393 to 402 which talk, among other things, about care orders; but the report does not say anything about the age of 17. So my inquiries have run into the sand down that alley and I am no further in discovering why the age 17 was chosen.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, also referred to me the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates' Courts) Act 1960, which this Bill is superseding, and to Section 2(1)(e). He is perfectly right in saying that that includes the provision whereby care orders to local authorities may be made for children. It is interesting that although that provision requires that such orders should cease at the age of 18, it does not say that they may not be made after the child is 17—at least, if it does, I cannot find the reference. I have gone as far back as 1955.
If I am going to be told that the history of this begins earlier still—say, with the Children Act 1948—then all I can do is to suggest to the House that it is high time it is looked at again. I think I am right in saying that in those days the school-leaving age was 15. It may have been 14; but, at any rate, it was not 16. The age of majority was 21. I suggested last time that this is a relic and nothing more than a relic of ancient legislation when, for the sake of nothing better, 17 was chosen because it seemed to be about right. The difficulty is that it no longer seems to be
408
about right. The age ought to be 18. I appreciate that only rarely will care orders be made under Clause 9. The circumstances will be exceptional. This is what the Morton Commission was suggesting in the first place. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the court should be left to answer the question that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, put to me: In the rare circumstance concerning a child over the age of 17, but under 18, what do we do? The answer is, Nothing. I believe we deserve an answer to this question. I beg to move.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Viscount on this Amendment. The situation regarding boys and girls—particularly girls—from the ages of 17 to 18 is extremely difficult when there are great problems with parents. Parents ask what help could be given to a girl of 17. No help can be given as the law stands at the moment. Acceptance into care cannot be offered. One cannot bring the girl before the court. One simply has to rely on a personal relationship which often at that stage is extremely difficult. Therefore I hope that the Minister will consider raising the age above the present level. Under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, Section 20, revised by the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, and further revised by the 1969 Act, it is possible for children who are in care to receive help up to the age of 21. Therefore when a girl or boy between 17 and 18 is in trouble, it is an extraordinary situation that one has absolutely nothing to offer them or their parents.
4.50 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having returned to this matter; but I find myself in some slight difficulty because my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, who dealt with this matter in Committee and was indeed going to deal with it today, has been called away for understandable reasons, with which we sympathise.
I have therefore gone into this matter, having had the pleasure of listening to the noble Viscount on a previous occasion and indeed today. I should like to have some pause for further reflection on the matter. I would not in any way wish to

409
suggest that I could announce that the Government were going to change their position here, because I am advised there could be some quite significant resource implications if they were to do so. However, I should like to go into this matter with the Department of Health and Social Security between now and the next stage of the Bill. In doing that, we shall be assisted by the valuable historical researches with which the noble Viscount has concerned himself since the Committee stage, and perhaps we can return to the matter on Third Reading.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, in these circumstances I certainly do not wish to press the matter and I am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer to look at it again. I, too, am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is not here, and am even more sorry to hear the reasons for his absence. I can envisage that there may be some resource indications, but when this was being argued previously, the main burden of the case put by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was not in fact immediately directed to the age of 17, to which he really only got at the end. He was chiefly defending the criterion of exceptional circumstances. As I say, if one wants to see what those exceptional circumstances are, one goes back to look at the paragraphs in the Morton Report to which I referred. There is there a very strong indication that these care orders would not be very common. I would think that in the case of somebody between the ages of 17 and 18 such an order would be altogether a rare thing; or at least certainly not an ordinary run of the mill case.
I know that the Government have resource problems at the moment, but the difficulty is that we comparatively seldom legislate on these subjects. It is now 18 years since this was looked at, and I would not object, if the resource implication was the only thing that was giving trouble, to there being special commencement order proceedings. We have those in all the rest of the legislation, and, if that is the only problem, then I can see no technical difficulty in getting over it. The point is that the principle needs to be justified and the noble Lord, for reasons which I well understand, has not attempted to do so today. I only hope that, if this Amendment is not going to be accepted,
410
we shall at some time at least hear positive arguments as to the reason. I shall therefore leave the noble Lord to his deliberations for the present and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 2:
Line 38, leave out ("£10") and insert ("£50").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment with some others which appear later on the Marshalled List, is to meet a general point about the level of fines made during the debate in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve. Under Clause 9, the parent or guardian of a child who has been received into the care of a local authority is required to notify the authority of any change in his or her address. The Amendment raises the maximum penalty for failing to comply from £10 to £50. We agree, on reflection, that £10 is too low a figure and have chosen £50 because this seems to us to be in line with the nature and seriousness of the offence and with the scales of fines provided for in the Criminal Law Act 1977. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supplementary provisions with respect to powers of court under ss. 7 to 9]:
4.54 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 13, line 12, at end insert ("or any other report to which the court may direct that the provisions of this subsection shall apply").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, although the untutored eye might not immediately recognise the matter, this is directed to the subject of hearsay evidence. I ventured to write to the noble Lord, warning him beforehand that that was so. We had a rather inconclusive discussion about hearsay evidence on the last stage of the Bill, largely because nobody could read my handwriting and the noble Lord did not know what I was going to talk about. Now he does, and he has written a most helpful letter to me which I have here, in which he explains the situation. He has explained, first, why it probably would be

411
better if we did not embark on the question of hearsay under the Children and Young Persons' Act 1969. I would be happy to agree with him that perhaps it would be better not to embark upon that legislation in connection with this Bill. He also explained a matter which is interesting not only to the Parliamentary, but also to the academic, lawyer: that is, why the Civil Evidence Act has never been appleid in magistrates' courts. I find this of very considerable interest.
He further described why it was that in his view, under this general complex of domestic proceedings, there was in the magistrates' courts unlikely to be any particular trouble about the reception of hearsay evidence. This information which appears in his letter on the subject would be, I would have thought, of great interest to people other than the mere recipient of that letter, which is myself. I wonder whether, in view of the amount of hard work which has gone into the correspondence sent to me by the noble Lord on this and on a large number of other practical and important matters, there may not be an opportunity for the Home Office to issue a circular which gives some words of guidance along these lines, because I feel that would be of great assistance to those who have to administer this body of law in future—particularly clerks of courts and chairmen of benches, who will have to decide what they are to do in any given circumstances.
By putting down this Amendment I therefore gave the noble Lord an opportunity of saying something about the question of hearsay evidence in domestic proceedings: but in fact I have gone a little further than the Bill and a little further than what the noble Lord says is already a satisfactory situation, because I think one needs just to look at the limitations provided in Clause 11. From subsections (3) to (6), we have a provision whereby the court can ask for a report to be prepared by an officer of the local authority—I should think a probation officer—and when it is prepared a copy is passed to the other side. The matter may be considered and the officer who made it made be examined, and hearsay evidence does not apply. I imagine that is extremely satisfactory and will apply to all domestic proceedings, as redefined in Clause 72 of the Bill; but it does not deal with reports
412
which are made by anybody other than the probation officer.
I should have thought, particularly as we are coming to Amendment No. 4, which I am very happy to see and which puts at the forefront of the court's consideration the welfare of the child, that the court ought to have available to it, without being troubled by the rules of hearsay, any relevant evidence that is available from any source. I can see that one can devise a system whereby, if one wishes to bring in what was said by the school-teacher, the Minister or anybody else, it can all go into the probation officer's report. Certainly it could do; but what happens if it does not and if there is an important piece of material evidence which, for one reason or another, has been missed out of the probation officer's report and is then excluded from the consideration before the court because of the hearsay rule?
I should have thought that in these circumstances—though I do not know what those who are involved in magistrates' courts would have to say about this—that one ought to be able to allow the court to have in front of them any report and to treat it in accordance with the probation officer's report under this clause as it thinks fit. Therefore, what I have done is to provide for an extension of the provisions—a relaxation of the hearsay rule—under Clause 11, so that the court may direct that these provisions apply to any other report. They do not have to do so. It is simply that, if they think that it is something which they ought to know about, they may direct that the hearsay rule shall not apply to that report. Therefore, it remains entirely within their hands. It is not mandatory upon them. I should have thought that it was a perfectly workable system for them to say: "It sounds as if we ought to know about that and, if we are not debarred by the hearsay rule, we should like to do so." That is what I am offering them a chance to do. So that, in addition to asking the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to talk about the hearsay rule, I should like him to consider this further substantive point that my Amendment raises. My Lords, I beg to move.
5.1 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I believe I am right in assuming

413
that the noble Viscount does not want me to spend too much time on the Amendment, but is more concerned with the wider question which he has raised. However, if I may just deal with the Amendment quite briefly, before coming on to the more general exposition of the case, the problem about this Amendment, which will not altogether surprise the noble Viscount, is that it is technically defective, because it is simply too wide in its scope. To give one example, it would apply, as worded, to reports obtained in criminal proceedings and could thus result in magistrates obtaining hearsay information before reaching a finding of guilt, which I am fairly certain is not the noble Viscount's intention.
I should like to address myself—and the noble Viscount appealed to me to do so—to the wider question, because this is an important matter and it might help the House, and, indeed, some outside it, to have this matter gone through in some detail. However, before coming to that, I hope that I can meet the noble Viscount on one point. I will gladly look into his suggestion about the circular. It is normal to send out circulars when one is implementing legislation of this character and I will look into the point to see whether it is practical.
The provision in Clause 11 is what I may call the "common form" provision on this point. The substance of this provision was inserted into the Guardianship Act 1973 and the Matrimonial Proceedings (Magistrates Courts) Act 1960 by Sections 90 and 91 of the Children Act 1975, and Sections 36 (3) and 39 of the 1975 Act apply this provision to proceedings relating to custodianship orders. If Clause 11 is enacted in its present form, the provisions governing welfare reports to magistrates' courts relating to the custody of children, or to the matters covered by Clauses 8 and 9 of this Bill, will all be covered by provisions in these terms.
The noble Viscount has expressed some concern about the application of the rule against hearsay to domestic proceedings where the custody of children is involved. We think that this problem is covered, at any rate for the most part, by this "common form" provision under which the report is copied to the parties in advance of the hearing, and any matters
414
included in that report are admissible in evidence whether or not they are hearsay. This means on the one hand, that anything which the welfare worker or probation officer who is charged with compiling the report considers is relevant to the issue before the court, and also is, in his view, sufficiently reliable to be recorded, will be before the court; but, equally, that the parties will have seen the report and will therefore be able, if they think fit, to contest any statement which they consider to be false or misleading. The position has, of course, been thought to be otherwise in proceedings under the Children and Young Persons Act 1969, although this view must now be regarded as qualified by the Humberside County Council case. But I do not think that any such difficulty has arisen, or will arise, in relation to domestic proceedings as defined in this Bill.
The question has also been raised of the application to magistrates' courts of the Civil Evidence Act 1968. The position on this is that the Act can be applied in whole or in part to civil proceedings in any court, including magistrates' courts, by Statutory Instrument made by the Lord Chancellor. I understand that the Home Office considered this possibility in 1969 and 1970, and went so far as to prepare draft rules. But when the Department invited comments, they received strong objections from the Justices' Clerks' Society and the London Magistrates' Clerks Association, on the grounds, first, that the rules were too complicated; secondly, that they would have to introduce interlocutory proceedings which are inappropriate to magistrates' courts, where procedures are generally far simpler and speedier, and, thirdly, that it would hardly be fair for them to be brought against a party who was not legally represented. They were the three central objections which were made at that time.
The Department accepted those views then and the time may well have arisen when it would be appropriate to look at this matter again. Accordingly, I will undertake to ensure that that is done. On the other hand, as the Law Commission observed when commenting on pleading, there is a real risk—and I am quite sure that, with his substantial experience in these matters, the noble

415
Viscount will agree with me—of over-complicating proceedings in magistrates' courts. However, in any event, fresh legislation is not necessary, because adequate rule-making powers already exist, as I have indicated. But I think it is right to look into the matter again, and will do so.
If we are to consider applying the Civil Evidence Act 1968, there is the further question of which parts of it are really relevant to the present issues which we have been discussing. I have already referred to the question of the admission of hearsay evidence, in so far as it is contained in reports by local authority welfare officers or probation officers. The Civil Evidence Act enables various out of court statements to be admitted as evidence of facts stated, and also for the admissibility of information contained in records or computers, and it is, of course, true that this could help in some domestic proceedings. However, as the Justices' Clerks' Society stated in 1969 and 1970, the structure of the 1968 Act is based on the assumption that there will be pleadings.
The Law Commission suggested in their report, on page 52, that Rules of Court,
"should provide for the introduction in the magistrates' matrimonial procedure of a very simple form of pleading."
They explained later that what they had in mind was that information should be sent with the summons to inform the respondent of the ground for the application, and that where this is "unreasonable behaviour" the statement should indicate briefly the main facts on which the applicant intends to rely and to inform the respondent, if he intends to contest the claim, to state the grounds on which he proposes to do so. The Government accept this recommendation, but nothing about it is included in the Bill, because again, we consider that the existing rule-making power is there under Section 15 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, and is wide enough to cover the matter.
The introduction of these modified pleadings may, of course, also affect the objections originally offered by the Justices' Clerks' Society to the application of any part of the Civil Evidence Act, although it is only when we come to
416
working out the rules that we shall be able to see to what extent this is so. However, I think the main conclusions are, on the one hand, that in the outcome the rules will go some way to meeting the general point made by the noble Viscount; and, on the other hand, that there is no need to amend the Bill to enable this point to be tackled, for the reasons that I hope I have made clear. I therefore suggest that it could be left aside for the time being, on the understanding that we shall take it up with the various bodies concerned with the running of the courts, when we return to the consideration of the rules.
5.10 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, until I was told about it by the noble Lord, I had not appreciated the practical objections which had been raised to the commencement order that would be required applying the Civil Evidence Act to magistrates' courts. I think that those objections are impressive, although I am glad that the noble Lord is prepared to look at the matter again.
This has nothing to do with domestic proceedings, but may I say that I believe that sooner or later the moment will come when somebody challenges in the magistrates' court the validity of the distress proceedings on rating matters on the ground that since almost all rating authorities now issue their rate demands by computer there is absolutely no method whatever of proving that any document was ever issued, unless it is done under the procedure contained in Sections 5 and 6 of the Civil Evidence Act. So far as I know, the point has not yet been taken, but it is only a matter of time and then there will be trouble. That action will have to be taken under the 1968 Act.
So far as this Bill is concerned, I am happy to leave the noble Lord to pursue his own inquiries. However, I should like to suggest that there is one way out of the difficulty about the report that comes from a source other than the social worker or probation officer. It might be that ingenuity can get around the difficulty so that we may maintain uniformity of treatment throughout this body of legislation.

417
If the report comes secondhand through somebody else, I suppose that there is nothing to stop the court asking for a supplementary report by the social worker or probation officer, and when it arrived they could take account of it under Clause 11(3) to (6). If this is right, that, too, might be something which could be drawn to the court's attention in the circular, because it would provide a comprehensive sweeping up of all the material that might be necessary. I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head. Whether that means that he takes the point or agrees with it I shall leave until the time when the circular is issued. In the meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 12 insert the following new clause:
Principle on which questions relating to custody and upbringing of children are to be decided
" . For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that the provisions of section 1 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 (which require a court in deciding any question relating to the custody or upbringing of a minor to have regard to the welfare of the minor as the first and paramount consideration) apply in relation to the exercise by a magistrates' court of its powers under this Part of this Act."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4. This is a point which the noble Viscount raised when we last discussed the Bill. The purpose of the Amendment is to insert a new clause which provides explicitly, and for the avoidance of any possible doubt, that the provisions of Section 1 of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 shall apply to proceedings under Part I of the Bill. Section 1 of the 1971 Act provides that in any proceedings where the custody or upbringing of a child are in issue, the child's welfare shall be the first and paramount consideration.
This Amendment meets the undertaking that I gave to the noble Viscount when we discussed this matter in Committee; namely, to examine his suggestion that we should write into the Bill the principle that the child's welfare is paramount in relation to any decisions under Part I. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, all I need to do is to thank the noble Lord. I consider this to be a great improvement to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Powers of court to make orders for the protection of a party to a marriage or a child of the family]:
5.14 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 15, line 22, leave out ("both") and insert ("more").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment and also Amendment No. 6—and with them it might be convenient to look at Amendment No. 17 which is a proposed new clause much later on—because of the lack of finality of discussion about this matter during the last stage of the Bill. It will be seen in Clause 13 that a magistrates' court may make an order under subsection (3)(i) and (ii) which either requires the respondent to leave the matrimonial home or prohibits him or her from going back and entering it. What it does not do is to provide that the respondent shall allow the applicant to go into or stay in the matrimonial home. In other words, it does not prevent a lockout.
The difficulty that was put forward when we discussed this matter in Committee was that, although it was generally conceded that this could be a problem, first it was not reflected either in the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 or in some other legislation which relates to this matter. I can see that it is probably a pity if we have a different range of powers covering this point in the different Bills, notwithstanding which there are problems at the moment about this area of law. If, therefore, we can find improvements I do not think that we should shrink from putting them into such legislation as we happen to have.
The other difficulty that was put forward was that the Law Commission had very firmly advised that no exclusion orders under this and the following clause should have any effect upon property rights. I imagine that the same thing is supposed to apply to the jurisdiction of the county

419
court under the 1976 Act. So I thought that if I were to return to this matter at all I must express it clearly that there was to be no effect on property rights, and that is what I have done in both Amendment No. 7 and Amendment No. 17.
I do not think that the situation is entirely happy. Equally, I can see that it is not particularly easy for the Government readily to come to a conclusion one way or the other. I believe that the noble Lord has indicated that he would like further time in which to look at it. If so, perhaps the noble Lord could give us a progress report and say whether there is any chance that we can make an improvement here. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as I indicated when the noble Viscount raised this question during the Committee stage, I found some attraction in his argument for giving magistrates' courts the power both to turn the violent spouse out of the matrimonial home and to let the victim of the violence return if that person had fled from the house on account of violence. However, the Law Commission considered this possibility and recommend against it.
I make that point not in order to oppose the proposition of the noble Viscount but simply to set out the matter for the purposes of historical accuracy. It may well be that subsequent events, including a provision in the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 which is similar to the first of the two Amendments which have been moved by the noble Viscount, would justify some modification of the Law Commission's opinion. However, as the noble Viscount has recognised, this is clearly a matter of some importance. That being so, I have discussed it with my honourable friend the joint Minister of State at the Home Office who deals on a day-to-day basis with these questions. We have agreed to consult the chairman of the Law Commission before taking a decision, and the Home Office is now in the process of doing just this.
Similar considerations apply to the declaratory provisions which the noble Viscount's Amendments would insert in Clause 13 and as a new clause after Clause 56, to the effect that orders pro-
420
habiting a spouse from occupying the matrimonial home which are made under Clause 13 of the Bill, Section 1 of the Matrimonial Homes Act 1967 or Section 4 of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976 shall not affect property rights.
As the noble Viscount will know, declaratory provisions have to be examined with particular care, since sometimes they produce unexpected and wholly unintended results. Although I am speaking on this occasion for the Government and not for the Home Office alone, perhaps I may be permitted to say that this complex question of property rights which arises in consequence of matrimonial disputes is more the concern of other Government Departments than of the Home Office itself. I must, therefore, be careful to ensure that my other ministerial colleagues are fully consulted about this proposal, but again I shall gladly do that.
I regret that I cannot give any firm undertaking about these matters before the Bill leaves this House. Because of their complexity, I fear that that would be an unrealisable hope. But I undertake on behalf of the Government that if the noble Viscount will withdraw his Amendments we will consider them very carefully in the light of the consultations I have indicated are already in train on whether Amendments on these general lines should be introduced, and if we come to the conclusion that that would indeed be appropriate we will arrange to introduce them in another place. In any case, of course, I would naturally let the noble Viscount know the outcome.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, it is very difficult for a non-legal person to understand these things. Do we know why the Law Commission objected?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not, unhappily, speak for the Law Commission on this occasion; I find it a fairly fulltime job replying on behalf of the Government. The Law Commission did examine this matter and came to this particular conclusion for a number of reasons. I will gladly give the noble Baroness as much indication as I can on behalf of the Law Commission. I cannot do it at this moment, but I will

421
gladly write to the noble Baroness and let her have all the information available to us as to the reasons why they came to this particular conclusion.
Viscount COLVILLE of CU LROSS: My Lords, I am greatly encouraged by what the noble Lord has said. Nobody, I least of all, would ever suggest that my drafting is anything other than the most tentative, but I think I have suggested that there may be methods of legal approach whereby one could creep up on this matter. Of course, any improvements would be something I would very much welcome. I am grateful that the Government are prepared to reconsider this matter and look at it on the whole broad basis of this area of the law. I would have been astonished if they had been able to come to any conclusion at this stage, or indeed in this House, and I will happily leave it to those in another place to chase the Ministers there if there should be any backsliding in the very encouraging approach we have had today. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 not moved.]
Clause 16 [Variation and revocation of orders for financial provision]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 19, line 44, at end insert (", except that the court shall not by virtue of this subsection extend the period for which the order is in force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8, and I can perhaps take No. 11 at the same time. These are drafting Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("14") and insert ("15").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9. This is a minor drafting correction.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.24 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 21, line 30, at end insert —
(" ( ) There may be prescribed by rules the circumstances in which and the means (including the service of notices) whereby the court may of its own motion initiate proceedings under this section to vary or revoke an order.").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have found a resource point in this Bill that the Government have not picked up. I am bound to say that I owe it to the researches of a most hardworking and meritorious group of magistrates in Manchester, a copy of whose conclusions on this legislation I have sent to the noble Lord. The point they are raising is this—and it goes with my Amendment No. 14. There are, of course, circumstances where a wife with family who has been given maintenance under his Bill its in fact still not receiving enough money from her husband to bring her above the level to which she is entitled to supplementary benefit. Therefore, the Department of Health and Social Security step in and take over the provision for herself and her family at whatever is the proper rate of supplementary benefits. They also take over the receipt of the money under the maintenance order by dealing direct with the justices' clerk.
The difficulty is this, and it is twofold—in fact I think there are three problems but only two are dealt with in my Amendments. First of all, if a man, knowing that his wife and family are in any event being supported by supplementary benefits, simply ceases paying, that does not worry the wife because she is getting more money anyway from the Supplementary Benefits Commission. Therefore, there is no incentive on her to seek to enforce the order made by the magistrates' court. She is in either event going to get the same money whether she enforces the order or not, and it is rather unpleasant to have to go and enforce it.
The second point is that if she should happen to know that her husband has got a better job, and is therefore able to supply his family with more money than he formerly could under the original order, she could, of course, go and seek a variation; but if the extra amount will still not bring her above the level of supplementary

423
benefits there is no incentive on her to do it. In each case it is the public purse that suffers. Instead of the man supporting his family it is being done by the Supplementary Benefits Commission, and so far as I can see the Bill provides them with no machinery whereby they can seek to enforce the order, or indeed seek to vary it, if appropriate.
There is a third point which I have not put down but which comes into this context. If a wife who has been separated from her husband does not go to the court at all but merely claims supplementary benefit, there is no order ever made under this Bill. One wonders whether somebody ought to be allowed to initiate proceedings whereby the husband is forced to maintain his wife. There is a precedent for this, because where there is an illegitimate child the Supplementary Benefits Commission have powers to initiate proceedings for an affiliation order under Section 19 of the Supplementary Benefits Act 1976.
I have not put it down in that form. I thought it might be better to approach it from the point of view of the court looking after its own orders. I have, therefore, drafted these points in the terms that the court itself would be able to take the initiative if facts were drawn to its attention by, for instance, the Department of Health and Social Security which warranted an enforcement of the order or a variation of the order. It also seemed to me that it was going to be much too complicated to do it by substantive legislation, and it was also likely to require to be amended if it was done at all, and therefore it should be done by rules. That is what these two Amendments are about. I think they do highlight a real problem. I have not invented them. They have come from experienced magistrates who deal with these matters day by day. I do not suggest I have found the right solution, but I do think I have highlighted the right problem, and it is one that needs to be dealt with at some time. I beg to move.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I think my noble friend has raised a very important point indeed. My experience, not only as a magistrate but as a member of another place for over
424
38 years, and having a lot to do with people's problems, is that it is very difficult indeed to suggest that a woman placed in the kind of difficulty which my noble friend has illustrated has to go down to the court to find out what her rights really are. My experience is that if you ask many poor women, so to speak, to go down to a court to find out what their rights are they think you are suggesting that they should get in touch with the police; that frightens them, and they do not like going.
If I may raise one experience of my own, I remember a woman who had moved into a fairly new council house; her husband was a lorry driver, a very good lorry driver, but he drove from East of the Pennines to the other side of the Pennines. He was already under an obligation to pay maintenance to his wife. While she went out shopping he went to the house and he removed every single piece of furniture. She had five children. By the time she returned to her house there was no bedding; there was absolutely nothing at all left for her.
The difficulty of trying to deal with this matter is very complicated. The woman herself is not in any position to take action, and once one gets involved in a case of that kind it seems to go on for ever—rather like the Crown Agents issue, it goes on for ever. Now that we are dealing with this Bill, and the difficulty of women themselves not liking to take action, or being frightened to take action or not knowing how to take action is recognised, if we can have something to cover them it would make a tremendous difference to many women who get involved in this difficulty. I am very pleased that my noble friend has raised this point and I am sure that the noble Lord opposite will be able to help.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, we are all indebted to the noble Baroness for the speech she has just made. I have listened with great care to what she has said emphasising the difficulty of the matters we have before us at the moment. Having said that, I approach the proposition of the noble Viscount with a degree of warmth, and indeed almost enthusiasm, so far as one particular aspect is concerned—that is, his desire to protect public funds. There is no difference between us on this

425
matter; it naturally has great appeal to us. He has raised a matter of some importance and we are indebted not only to the noble Viscount but to the Manchester justices for having drawn our attention to this.
As I am sure the noble Viscount will recognise, obviously it has not been possible in the time available since he put down his Amendment to consult the significant and indeed formidable number of interests which would be affected by a proposal of that sort, and therefore, unhappily, I cannot enter into any firm commitment, as far as the Government are concerned, beyond giving an undertaking, which I gladly do, of considering this matter with some care and attention which certainly in my view it deserves. I think it was probably right for me to say that, although a rule-making power could well be a useful device, I am not sure that an unfettered power for the court to take the initiative upon its own motion is necessarily the right answer. For example, it would not normally have the sources of information on which the desirability for such an initiative could be based. Nevertheless, the noble Viscount has raised an interesting matter, and indeed a matter of some importance, and I shall gladly undertake to go into it. Unhappily, so far as this matter is concerned we have not a great deal of time ahead of us and it will have to be gone into, as I am sure it will with some thoroughness, in another place.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, once again I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord. I put the Amendment down in this form because it kept the matter within the Home Office territory. If one drafts Amendments on the basis that the Supplementary Benefits Commission or the Department of Health is able to apply for a summons, as they do under an affiliation order procedure, I can instantly see that even more complications would occur. I should have thought that the rules could provide that the justices took account of information that was received from the Supplementary Benefits Commission or the probation officer or indeed a local authority, so I do not think it is impossible to do it along these lines. However, I am not advocating this particular approach but simply that something should be done, and with the
426
promise that the noble Lord has given, and if the House will allow me, I am glad on this occasion to ask to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 22, line 14, at end insert (", except that the court shall not by virtue of this subsection extend the period for which the order is in force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11. I spoke to this when I moved Amendment No. 8.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Supplementary provisions with respect to variation and revocation of orders]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 23, line 10, leave out ("any such application") and insert ("an application under section 16 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This is a drafting Amendment which removes what would otherwise be an anomaly relating to liability to cost in matrimonial cases.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 27 [Enforcement etc. of orders for payment of money]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 28, line 2, leave out ("£10") and insert ("£50").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13. This Amendment is similar to the Amendment to Clause 9 which I moved earlier relating to the point put to us by the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, in Committee. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not know where my noble friend is, but she said at lunchtime that she was extremely grateful and I am sure it is only proper that I should say so in public.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 54 [Further amendments of Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 as respects Scotland]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 53, line 1, after ("maintenance") insert ("for the benefit of the applicant").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting Amendment relevant to Scotland only. It is intended to make it clear that the conditions for making an award of maintenance, laid down in what is now Clause 54(1)(d) of this Bill, apply only where a divorced spouse claims maintenance for his or her own benefit. These conditions will not apply where a divorced spouse claims maintenance for the benefit of a child. The conditions laid down in Clause 54(1)(d) are clearly relevant only where a divorced spouse is claiming maintenance for himself or herself. A divorced spouse can at present claim aliment for the benefit of a child without fulfilling these conditions and there is no reason to change this. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.37 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 16:
After Clause 54, insert the following new clause:
Eligibility for Legal Aid in Scotland for proceedings under Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972
(".After section 43 of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 there shall be inserted the following section—
43A.— (1) In connection with proceedings under Part I of this Act in relation to a maintenance order made by a court in a reciprocating country, where there is produced a certificate from the responsible authority in that country to the effect that the payee would, in that country, be financially eligible for complete or partial—

(i) legal aid; or

(ii) exemption from costs or expenses,

in proceedings there in relation to that maintenance order, sections 2(1) and (6)(c) and (d), 3 and 4 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 shall not apply in respect of the payee and, subject to the other provisions of that Act, legal aid shall under that Act be available to the payee without inquiry into the payee's resources.
428
(2) In connection with proceedings under Part II of this Act—

(a) arising out of an application received from a convention country for the recovery of maintenance; or

(b) relating to an order made in respect of such an application,

where there is produced a certificate from the appropriate authority in that country to the effect that the applicant would, in that country, be financially eligible for complete or partial —

(i) legal aid; or

(ii) exemption from costs or expenses,

in proceedings there for the recovery of maintenance, sections 2(1) and (6)(c) and (d), 3 and 4 of the said Act of 1967 shall not apply in respect of the applicant and, subject to the other provisions of that Act, legal aid shall under that Act be available to the applicant without inquiry into the applicant's resources.
(3) Where, in connection with proceedings under Part I or II of this Act, a person has received legal aid by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) above, legal advice and assistance under the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972 shall, notwithstanding—

(i) any financial conditions imposed by, or by virtue of, sections 1 and 4(2), (3) and (4); and

(ii) in relation to the effect of subsections (1) to (4) and (7) of section 4 of the said Act of 1967, the provisions of section 6(1)(b),

of the aid Act of 1972 (but subject otherwise to the provisions of the said Act of 1972), be available in Scotland for that person, without inquiry into his resources, in connection with any matter incidental to, or arising out of, those proceedings.
(4) In subsection (1) above "maintenance order" "reciprocating country", "responsible authority" and payee "have the same meanings respectively as in Part I of this Act; and in subsection (2) above" convention country "means a country or territory specified in an Order in Council under section 25(1) of this Act," maintenance "has the same meaning as in Part II of this Act, and" appropriate authority "means the authority from which the Secretary of State received the application." ")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this is a somewhat lengthy Amendment designed to meet a small but awkward problem which has arisen in relation to persons overseas who seek to claim maintenance against residents of Scotland. The Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 provides for courts in the United Kingdom to

429
deal with two types of application from overseas: maintenance orders made by courts in reciprocating countries under Part I of the Act, and maintenance claims transmitted from countries which have ratified the 1956 United Nations Convention on Maintenance under Part II of that Act. Part I orders and part II claims are received by the appropriate Secretary of State and transmitted by him for action by the magistrates' or Sheriff Court in the area where the payer specified in the order or claim is believed to reside.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the necessary subsequent action to have orders registered or made by the court, and enforced against the payer, is taken by court officers (the justices' clerks) without any charge being made to the overseas applicant for the service. However, in Scotland, this is not the case because court officers in Scotland do not have the same functions as their counterparts have in other parts of the United Kingdom, and in particular there is no court-operated system for the recovery of maintenance awarded by the courts.
Accordingly, the Secretary of State for Scotland has to arrange with the Law Society of Scotland for the proceedings to be entrusted to a solicitor in private practice so that he can take the necessary action. The solicitor naturally expects to be paid for his work; but, while the proceedings involved qualify for legal aid under the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967, the assessment of a claimant's means to see whether she qualifies for aid, and, if so, whether she is liable to pay a contribution, poses considerable administrative difficulties which have not yet been satisfactorily resolved, and indeed might also involve large costs. In addition, it is possible that an overseas claimant living in a country with a strong currency and a high cost of living might find herself ineligible for legal aid in this country, although in her own country she would be regarded as living in something near to the poverty line.
This situation, apart from the administrative difficulties to which it has given rise, also exposes Scotland to the charge that it does not provide any kind of reciprocity to claimants from other countries where maintenance is collected at no charge on behalf of applicants in Scotland—I understand that these include Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
It would not be practicable in this limited context to provide for court officers to collect maintenance. This is something which has to be looked at in the much wider area of diligence, which is at present being examined by the Scottish Law Commission. But we think that it should be possible to give a considerable measure of help here by relaxing the normal conditions for the payment of legal aid so as to provide that applicants under the 1972 Act will be eligible to receive aid without having their resources assessed or having to pay contributions towards their costs. This is what the present Amendment does; and it also provides that where an applicant has received legal aid for the enforcement of an order she may receive legal advice and assistance free for any matters connected with or arising out of the proceedings. This is to cover the case where a legal aid certificate for enforcement has expired; the person against whom the order is made has ceased to pay; but there seems a possibility that payments could be restarted if a solicitor's letter were sent to him. Subsection (3) of the new clause makes such an arrangement possible.
Finally, the clause is drafted so as to provide that free legal aid and assistance will be given to claimants who in their own country would be entitled to complete or partial legal aid or exemption from legal costs. This would be certified by the relevant authority in the foreign country transmitting the claim. While a provision in these terms would possibly not cover all applicants, we think that it would certainly be applicable to the majority of them, and there should be some safeguard against the granting of legal aid to persons who would not qualify for it in their own country. I should mention that there is a subsequent Amendment—Amendment No. 28—which is purely consequential upon this Amendment and will add the new clause to those provisions which apply in Scotland. However, at present I content myself with moving Amendment No. 16. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, all I need say is that it is valuable to have had this rather complex matter explained to the House so that it may be read by those concerned. Having heard it, I for my part think that it is an improvement to the Bill and I hope that the House will insert the new clause as set out.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, having looked carefully at the new clause I have raised a specific question about one part of it—that is to say, the wording of subsection (1) of this new clause relating to Section 2(6)(d) of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967, to which reference is made. That is a matter which may be reconsidered and I hope that those who read what I have said will also bear in mind that it is now being reconsidered.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 59 [Revocation and variation of orders for periodical payments]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 60, line 39, leave out ("or (b)") and insert ("(b) or (e)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 18 and perhaps at the same time I may speak to Amendment No 19. I do not think that there is anything between the noble Viscount and myself on this particular matter. Amendment No. 18 has the same effect as the Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, but the re-lettering is due to an Amendment made in the Committee stage to Section 34 of the Children Act 1975 which is now embodied in Clause 57.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I think that I did get it right originally. When I inserted the new Clause 34 I put in a little subsection (bb) and I did not spot that the draftsman had renumbered the paragraphs. Therefore, we are talking about the same thing. We are absolutely at one and I am very happy to accept Amendment No. 18 and thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 19 not moved.]
Clause 73 [Domestic courts]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 70, line 44, leave out ("county palatine of Lancaster") and insert ("countries of Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Lancashire").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 20. At the
432
same time, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 21. Clause 73(6), to which this is a small amendment, refers to the rules which will give powers to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to exercise functions in relation to domestic courts and domestic court panels.
Under the Administration of Justice Act 1973, re-enacting on this point the Local Government Act 1972, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is responsible for appointing justices throughout the counties of Greater Manchester, Lancashire and Merseyside. The boundaries of these counties are not coterminous with the boundaries of the County Palatine of Lancaster. An Amendment is therefore needed here to relate the responsibilities of the Chancellor of the Duchy under the rules to the three administrative counties, rather than to the historical county of Lancaster. The second Amendment is a minor one consequential upon the first. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 71, line 3, at end insert ("of Lancaster").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21. I have already spoken to this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, I must call your Lordships' attention to the fact that, if Amendment No. 22 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 23 or 24.
Clause 74 [Persons who may be present during hearing of domestic proceedings]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 72, line 20, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
(" (1) For subsection (2) of section 57 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 there shall be substituted the following subsection—
" (2) In the case of domestic proceedings in a magistrates' court other than proceedings under the Adoption Act 1976, no person shall be present during the hearing and determination by the court of the proceedings except—

(a) officers of the court;

433

(b) parties to the case before the court, their solicitors and counsel, witnesses and other persons directly concerned in the case;

(c) representatives of newspapers or news agencies;

(d) any other person whom the court may in its discretion permit to be present, so, however, that permission shall not be withheld from a person who appears to the court to have adequate grounds for attendance.".")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22. This is a matter which we discussed in Committee and, at some length, on Second Reading, when it appeared that there were some divergences of approach as regards this particular question. I hope that the Amendment which I have moved and the explanation which I propose to give will satisfy both sides of this particular argument.
Clause 74(1) specifies the persons who may be present in court. during domestic proceedings and provides for a measure of privacy—which I think we are all in favour of as far as these particular proceedings are concerned—to apply to those proceedings, by cutting down the numbers of observers who may attend. Fears were expressed at the Committee stage that the court would not have discretion to admit a close friend or relative of either party, or members of the legal profession wanting to gain experience of such proceedings. We have put down this Amendment to make it clear that that is not the intention of the clause: we merely wish to give the courts discretion in this matter. This is done by making certain changes in Section 57(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 and setting it out in full in the Bill. By virtue of this Amendment, among the persons who may be present are, as your Lordships will see,
"any other person whom the court may in its discretion permit to be present, so, however, that permission shall not be withheld from a person who appears to the court to have adequate grounds for attendance".
In other words, the court may at its discretion enable relatives and solicitors and counsel who wish to observe the proceedings to do so. The retention of the existing proviso places the onus on the court not to withhold permission if it appears that such persons have adequate grounds for attending. Having listened to the arguments on this matter on both
434
occasions, I think that this meets most of the anxieties that have been expressed—in any event, I very much hope so. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it certainly meets mine and I welcome it. It is a good deal better than Amendments Nos. 23 and 24.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations and felicitations and say no more.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I should like to ask one question. The magistrates' court has to consider the matter. If, for instance, among those who are representing for the adoption, someone has an objection, have they a right to say so to the court?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that the matter to which the noble Baroness is referring comes later in our proceedings.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.]
5.50 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 25:
Line 34, leave out (" (d) and (e)") and insert ("(c) and (d)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 26:
At end insert ("but so that the court may, upon the application of any person made before or during the hearing of any proceedings under that Act permit any person to whom such applicatio relates to be present during the hearing and determination of any proceedings specified by the court for that purpose.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the Amendment about adoption proceedings and the time when my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside might like to ask her question. There is a difference between all other domestic proceedings and adoption proceedings. Indeed, one can see that from the wording of Amendment No. 22, which we have just discussed.
I wanted to table this Amendment in order to ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, to explain the difference and how it works, because I think that, out of the entire list, only in adoption proceedings will there be separate rules about who can be there. It would be helpful if, first, we could all hear what they are and then consider whether we still think that they are right. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government are not particularly enthusiastic about this Amendment proposed by the noble Viscount, but, as I understand it, he simply wishes me to state the situation as we see it. If I may, I shall deal for a moment with the Amendment. This would give the courts a discretion to admit to adoption proceedings persons who are not directly concerned in the case. It has long been the practice to hold adoption proceedings in private in order to safeguard the anonymity of the child. The only certain way to ensure that the court or its parents are not identified is to hold the proceedings in camera.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord must mean "the child or its parents".
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I apologise. It just shows that after an hour and a half on this Bill one must be permitted a verbal slip of that sort. The noble Viscount is, of course, quite right. The only certain way to ensure that the child or its parents—I think that the court will probably be identified—are not identified, is to ensure that the proceedings take place in camera. Indeed, that has been the situation since the Adoption Act, 1958.
This preservation of the existing position won general support by the organisations which were consulted on the Law Commission's recommendations and was also specifically approved by the Departmental Committee on the Adoption of Children whose first chairman was Sir William Houghton and whose second chairman was Judge Stockdale. This committee, which reported in October 1972 in Command 5107, said in paragraph 270:
436
"the law requires adoption cases to be dealt with in private. We are sure that this is right."
The Government continue to think this is right. We think that we should preserve the existing law by limiting the persons who may be present to those whose presence is essential to the case. The importance of anonymity overrides the other considerations. It is for this reason that provision is made in Section 12(1)(b)(i) of the Children Act and the adoption rules for a parent or guardian to consent to adoption without knowing the identity of the applicants and for the proceedings to be considered, in certain circumstances, without the applicant becoming known to the respondent. It would be incompatible with this general scheme to give the general discretion which would be conferred by the Amendment. We have considered this matter. We think that the existing approach is probably the right one, but we certainly considered the matter as a result of the noble Viscount's Amendment.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, first, may I explain that during my life I have had much to do with adopted children, not for myself but for my friends. Will a general instruction be sent out to the courts on this particular Amendment? Quite recently in the Parliamentary system we decided that an adopted child could now apply, through the proper procedure, to find out who his or her mother was. That is certainly being used by one or two of the adopted children of whom I have knowledge.
It is tremendously important that we should get the matter absolutely straight, because, from the point of view of those who adopt children and of the children themselves afterwards, I am not certain whether I should be very much in favour of this Amendment. But I should like to know what action will be taken so that the court is in a position to decide. Will courts receive a circular on this? After all, there could be a court of magistrates who might not be the right type of magistrates to be on a court of that kind. Therefore, it is a very important issue for Parliament to decide at the present time.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, perhaps I may have the leave of the House to speak a second time. The noble Baroness has raised an important

437
question; namely, the attitude of magistrates and whether a bench of magistrates might simply get it wrong. That emphasises the point to which we devoted a great deal of attention; namely, the training of magistrates. I believe that, as a result of the passage of this Bill, this will in the future be carried out on a much more rational and planned basis than was the situation prior to the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, was one of those who raised this particular important question. Certainly, we have already discussed the matter of a circular. I shall glady consider whether it is necessary to re-emphasise the situation. The Government's position is that we should stand on the existing situation, but I repeat that I shall gladly look into whether it is necessary to emphasise the particular question as regards these adoption procedures.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, perhaps I may apologise for being kept unduly long elsewhere, but I should like to ask the noble Lord whether it is still the intention to admit the Press to the domestic courts but to exclude them from the adoption courts, as is the case at present?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, yes. It was in order to clear up this sort of thing that I put down this Amendment. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for considering and restating the existing practice. We can now find it all in one place. That was all I had in mind. I do not think that my noble friend Lady Ward of North Tyneside need worry, because the question of someone discovering who his or her real parents were does not arise until he or she reaches the age of 18. Therefore, I should have thought that there was no question of it arising when the adoption proceedings are considered in the first place. Therefore, there is no conflict at all between this particular provision and that other more recently introduced measure. Having heard the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 76 [Reports by probation officers on means of parties]:
5.58 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 73, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) there shall be omitted the words in subsection (1) "in which an order may be made" to "any matter of bastardy").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have a nagging feeling here that technically there is something which we can do to improve the Bill. It is to do with the definition of "domestic proceedings". In Clause 72 there is a complete, new and up-to-date list of what domestic proceedings consist of. Section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, which is what Clause 76 is all about, talks about what is, in effect, a means report which can be asked for in the case of certain domestic proceedings. Section 60 of the 1952 Act as it now stands relates to:
"any domestic proceedings in which an order may be made for periodical payment … or … for any proceedings for the enforcement or variation of any such order, or … any matter of bastardy".
The noble Lord has answered me in one of his letters as to the first part, in that it is necessary to make sure that the magistrates have the power to ask for means reports when they are dealing with variation orders as well as original orders, because these need not necessarily be domestic proceedings, and they can choose whether they are or not. But what now puzzles me, having read that letter and since I received it, which I am afraid was after I tabled the Amendment, is why we still keep in the reference to bastardy proceedings, because these are automatically domestic proceedings under the list in Clause 72; and if we pick those out here in Section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, when we have already included them as domestic proceedings anyway under the new Clause 56, I think that there will be some distinction looked for by the lawyers which I am sure is not intended. Therefore, this has turned itself into a pure matter of drafting. If the noble Lord cannot answer me at this stage I shall certainly not blame him, but I think that there is one more small point here to tidy up. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for having explained the purpose of this Amendment. I think that the Amendment

439
which he has proposed would lead to a change of substance which, from what he has just said, I do not think is his intention. I should like to explain, as briefly as possible, why it would have that effect.
This Amendment would make some changes in the provisions of Section 60(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952, which enables a magistrates' court to request a probation officer to report on the means of the parties. At present the court may request such a report in any domestic proceedings in which the court may make an order for periodical payments and in proceedings for the variation or enforcement of such an order. The Amendment would allow the court to request a report in any domestic proceedings without, in other words, that rather important qualification.
In order to avoid any doubt on this point I should say briefly what is meant by the term "domestic proceedings" in Section 60 of the 1952 Act. "Domestic proceedings" in this section means proceedings defined as domestic proceedings by Section 56 of the 1952 Act. Clause 72 of the Bill replaces the present Section 56 with a new section containing a comprehensive definition of domestic proceedings. In referring to "domestic proceedings" in the discussion on this Amendment we are therefore referring to that term as defined in Clause 72 of the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Viscount was hoping in this Amendment to clarify the provisions of Section 60(1) by substituting a rather more straightforward reference to domestic proceedings for the present more complicated wording. However, there are two reasons why we regard this Amendment as having an undesirable effect.
The first is that the Amendment would allow a court to call for a means report in any domestic proceedings, a point I made a moment ago. On the present wording the court may call for a report only in domestic proceedings in which it has power to make an order for periodical payments. There are some domestic proceedings, as for instance proceedings under the Marriage Act 1949, and adoption proceedings, in which the court has no power to make an order for periodical payments. There seems to be no reason in such a case to allow the court to make
440
use of the power in Section 60 of the 1952 Act to call for a report on means. The power in Section 60 is intended for use in a case where a court has power to make an order for financial provision and is uncertain whether or not, or how, to exercise that power. If Section 60 were extended to apply to all domestic proceedings the courts might begin to make use of it in a more general way. We think it right that the power to call for a means report should be explicitly restricted to cases in which the court has power to make an order for periodical payments.
May I just make one other point, which the noble Viscount will recall we discussed on the last occasion this Bill was before the House. As these reports are made by the Probation Service, I am sure he would accept my general view on this matter that it would not be desirable to impose further burdens on the Probation Service, which is already under some degree of pressure, when in fact there was no reasonable cause for that work to be done. That is the first reason why we are unhappy about the phraseology of the noble Viscount's Amendment.
The second reason why we think the Amendment would have an undesirable effect is that it would remove the present power in Section 60 to call for a means report in proceedings for the variation or enforcement of an order for periodical payments. Variation and enforcement proceedings are not domestic proceedings, and that is why, as I have indicated, we are unhappy about this Amendment, and for the other reasons I have given.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, as I think I indicated, I had to draft this Amendment before I got the letter of explanation and I am very happy to accept that. The only thing we now have left is the reference to any matter of bastardy. That, I think, is plainly within the lists in Clause 72. If it is in the list in Clause 72, there is no need in that case to repeat that, and that alone, of the list in Section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think that the present wording is rather antiquated, and I shall look into the possibility of making a drafting Amendment on a subsequent occasion.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 82 [Short title and extent]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 77, line 36, after ("54,") insert—
("(Eligibility for legal aid in Scotland for proceedings under Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as I explained earlier, this is purely consequential on Amendment No. 16 and the new clause which your Lordships allowed to be inserted. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.6 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 78, line 4, after ("13") insert ("(Amendment of s. 8(3) of Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972),").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is linked with one of the Government Amendments to Schedule 2. The Amendments to Schedule 2 increase from £10 to £50 the penalty for failure to notify a change of address under various provisions in domestic proceedings legislation. They are the "Macleod Amendments", if we may so describe them. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transitional provisions]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 80, line 15, at end insert—
("8. A provision of Schedule 2 to this Act which relates to the punishment by way of fine which may be imposed for any offence shall not affect the punishment which may be imposed for an offence which is committed before the date on which that provision comes into force.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as we have agreed that the maximum fines for failing to notify a change of address should be increased from £10 to £50, a
442
transitional provision is needed to clarify the position for magistrates hearing cases which cut across the date the new fines come into force. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, does the noble Lord wish to move the remaining Amendments en bloc?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Please.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 31 to 38:
Page 81, line 1, leave out ("subsections (1), (2) and (4) of")
Page 81, line 1, after ("Act") insert—
("(a) in subsections (1), (2) and (4)") line 3, at end insert—
("(b) in subsection (2)(c) for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".")
Page 82, line 5, at end insert—
("The Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 (c 55)
In section 9(2) of the Affiliation Proceedings Act 1957 for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".")
Page 84, line 6, at end insert—
("The Guardianship of Minors Act 1971] (c 3)
In section 13(2) of the Guardianship of Minors Act 1971 for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".")
Page 84, line 13, at end insert—
("In section 8(3) of the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972 for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".")
Page 84, line 14, leave out ("the Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1972") and insert ("that Act")
Page 86, line 31, at end insert—
("In section 43(2) of that Act for the words "£10" there shall be substituted the words "£50".")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am glad to have the enthusiastic support of the noble Viscount in that proposition. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 31 to 38. All these Amendments, except the first two, increase the maximum fine for

443
the offence of failing to notify a change of address from £10 to £50 in the various Acts, or parts of Acts, which, by virtue of Clause 72 of the Bill, are defined as "domestic proceedings". The first two Amendments are a consequential re-lettering which turn an existing minor Amendment into a paragraph (a) so that a paragraph (b) relating to the fine increase can be inserted. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

WHITEHALL: NEW BUILDING AND MODERNISATION
6.9 p.m.
Lord MOLSON Lord MOLSON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what plans they have for the restoration and modernisation of Government buildings in and around Whitehall; and what new buildings they intend to erect on the Westminister Hospital and other sites in the area. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I intend this to be, strickly speaking, a Question, and I have no intention of making any suggestions, directly or indirectly, as to what should be done. This Question simply seeks information; I am not pressing for any particular solution, but it is time we were told what is going on in the mind of the Government in regard to these immensely important decisions in an area which is of outstanding historical and architectural interest.
Mr. Tom Driberg, as he was at that time and who became known to us in this House as Lord Bradwell, said:
"We can always say that this is an important decision and therefore it must take 18 months or a year to announce, but this has gone on for an awfully long time."
Mr. Driberg complained that it had been going on for an awfully long time on 24th January 1972. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will acquit me of any charge of impatience if I ask for an indication of what progress has been made. I do not expect an immediate answer and I cannot emphasise too strongly that am anxious that as long consideration should be given to this matter as will result in our reaching a right conclusion. It has dragged on for so long and so many inquiries have taken place that I had to ask my honourable friend Mr.
444
Robert Cooke, who has been most persistent in this matter and who has done signal public service in keeping it before the House of Commons and successive Governments of both Parties, to bring me up to date with what has happened.
I am familiar with what one might call the beginnings of this particular development. I was Minister of Works when it was decided to acquire what was then called the St. Stephen's Club on the opposite side of Bridge Street and where subsequently it was decided to erect a Parliamentary building for the benefit of Members of the other House. In 1963, an inquiry, called the Martin Buchanan Inquiry, was held at the instance of Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, at that time Minister of Works. Its recommendation was for the wholesale destruction of practically everything we know as Whitehall and its replacement by an immense beehive occupied by no fewer than 4,000 civil servants.
This wholesale demolition was unacceptable to public opinion, which was guided and led by all those who are concerned with the preservation of London's historic and beautiful buildings, even if at that time the Victorian style of architecture was not fashionable. It was as a result of the general protest against this that two further inquiries were set up. One was the Willis Inquiry, which resulted in the recommendation that the Norman Shaw buildings, at that time the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police and called New Scotland Yard, and Richmond Terrace should be preserved. In 1966, Sir Robert Matthew was appointed to look at the whole matter again and lie roundly condemned the proposals of the Martin Buchanan Inquiry and urged large preservation of the existing buildings with such modifications as were necessary to increase and improve the accommodation.
The first announcement we had of the great changes in Government thinking on this subject came from Mr. Paul Channon, speaking in another place, when he was Minister of State at what was then the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Since then, there has been a change of Government and of course the whole economic and financial position of the country has deteriorated, and I make no complaint at all that the present Government should have looked at the entire

445
matter again. I certainly do not blame them for having taken a considerable amount of time to to so.
My Question falls into two parts, although of course the whole of Whitehall must be dealt with as a single area. The old Westminster Hospital site has now been derelict for a very long time and it is sad that better use cannot be made of it than as a car park. Again, I do not complain that time is being taken to consider what use should be made of what is one of the most important sites in the whole of London. Giving, as it does, a remarkable view of Westminster Abbey, it is of the utmost importance that it should be properly used. It is indeed a good thing that my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys, who I hope will be speaking later in this debate, turned down the proposal that it should be used as a new Colonial Office. Alas, we no longer have any colonies and there is no need for a Colonial Office; to be flippant, I can only say I hope that the Government will not think it a suitable site for new offices for the Crown Agents.
I should be glad to know the thinking of the Government on this subject. It is open to argument that it should be left as an open space and it is arguable that it would be better if only part of it were left as an open space because I am one of those who think that Gothic architecture is most impressive and beautiful when seen fairly close to and I am not one who admires great open squares like the Place de la Concorde in Paris; I should be sorry if we had anything of that sort in London because I do not think it is suited to the character of our city.
I understand from my friends in another place that there are some Committees there which are at the present time considering this general question of the redevelopment of Whitehall, and I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether she can indicate at all the line of demarcation in these studies between the Legislature and the Government. Quite obviously, whatever is going to be done must meet with the approval of another place, but at the same time it is an excellent thing that those who are going to take the ultimate decision in this matter should be considering it at the present time.
I have said that I want only to seek information. I am asking only for a
446
report on progress. I shall fully understand if the noble Baroness indicates that no decisions have been taken as yet, and if she says that, having regard to the general condition of the country, no work will be undertaken for some considerable time. That was made quite plain by Mr. Edward Short, now the noble Lord, Lord Glenamara, when he was Lord President of the Council. He announced then that the Government had no intention of proceeding with the Parliamentary building which was shown as a model some two years ago. Various arrangements have been made in the buildings which are owned by the Government around this Palace to improve the accommodation for Members of another place.
There are, I think, two considerations which are relevant in deciding about the future, and I have given the noble Baroness notice that I should be glad to have at any rate some indication from her, first, as to the estimated number of civil servants who will have to be accommodated in the vicinity of this Palace. I know that the general policy is that there should be dispersal over the whole country, but, generally speaking, the civil servants who go into the Provinces are those who are concerned with (shall I say?) rather routine affairs, and there will always be many who have to be in close touch with Ministers and with Members of both Houses of Parliament who will require to be accommodated in this vicinity. Secondly, in considering whether it is justifiable to go to the capital expense of building new accommodation, it is important to consider the high rents which have to be paid in London at the present time for leased accommodation; and if the noble Baroness can indicate to what extent the building of new offices might result in a saving of the heavy expenditure upon rent, I feel that that would be a very valuable piece of information. The Prime Minister's recent and welcome directive as to the reduction of expenditure on general Government administration may well affect these figures.
My Lords, I know that the noble Baroness takes a very keen personal interest in all these matters of amenity and in the preservation of our buildings of beauty and historical interest, and I shall be most grateful to her for anything that she can say to us this evening in order to

447
indicate the Government's thinking upon this matter.
6.25 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Molson for asking this Unstarred Question this evening about a matter of great public importance which we have not discussed for some little time. At a distance of a decade, or perhaps a little more than a decade, it seems almost unthinkable that the Martin-Buchanan Inquiry of 1963 to 1965, referred to by my noble friend Lord Molson, should have come up with the decision which it in fact did—two distinguished architects who today, quite frankly, would not even be considered as suitable people to review the situation again were there need to do so. What is so particularly curious is that in 1968, only a matter of three years after the Martin-Buchanan Inquiry took place and had reported, and after their report had been released to the public, a further matter arose so short a distance away as the Tate Gallery from the centre of the Martin-Buchanan Inquiry; that is to say, the public offices and Parliament Square.
I do not know whether from that one can judge that there was an insufficient amount of comparison between the two inquiries, but your Lordships must recollect that in the autumn of 1968 the Tate Gallery—a very important building constructed by Sydney Smith between 1893 and 1897—was the subject of a formal application given by the Ministry of Public Building and Works, as it then was, to demolish the steps and the portico of the Gallery.
The public outcry, which will be very easily recollected, was immense at that time, and subsequently, as your Lordships will recollect, the plan was withdrawn. But I believe it to be true to say that however important a particular area is for a public inquiry in the centre of London, the lessons to be learned from it are never really taken on board by all branches of Government. I believe it is true to say that in the case of the Martin-Buchanan Inquiry no less than five listed Grade I buildings were being considered for demolition. I will name them. They were the Foreign Office, the Home Office, the
448
India Office, and Bryden's Treasury and part of some other public offices adjoining. I do not think it has been a matter of history that a single Grade I listed building has been demolished in the United Kingdom since listing began years ago. But were this proposal to be reexamined, I am perfectly certain the noble Baroness will inform the House—and she will inform us whether this is correct—that no listed Grade I buildings are at present thought to be under threat of demolition in this area.
My Lords, I believe that in examining the situation as it is today we have to be particularly grateful to a number of bodies. I am delighted that I am very shortly to be followed in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, because I believe that the work of the Historic Buildings Board of the Greater London Council, the authors of this very important document called Do you care about Historic Buildings?, was instrumental in bringing about great public interest in those public buildings and other buildings which in the last few years have been saved in the Westminster and central area, the subject of this Unstarred Question.
What a large number of successes can be recorded! Surely the restoration of the Palace of Westminster from the moment when Colonel Clifton-Brown laid the foundation stone in 1948 and its completion about eight years later was one of the most important. The restoration of Downing Street; the cleaning and restoration of Barry's Treasury, the restoration and renovation of the Banqueting Hall and the renewal and replacement of the pictures in the original sitings in the very celebrated ceiling; the completion of the new Ministry of Defence, a building which, incidentally, was constructed only, I think, 15 years ago to a plan originally designed in 1911; and, of course, the refurbishing of the Admiralty and other public offices. But perhaps the most significant in recent years has been the cleaning of the five public buildings referred to; and, more important even than that, has been the restoration of one side of Westminster Abbey. Public feeling in this area is passionate, and I am certain that an imaginative concept for the pedestrianisation of certain parts of the

449
area would be particularly welcome by the public at large. Whether this is possible is a matter for other considerations.
My noble friend Lord Molson referred to the Westminster Hospital site and suggested that this might still be considered for an area of open space. There are many who would heartily support that view. Further, there is in this area a great shortage of trees, following the felling of a certain number of them; and were it possible to renew the landscaping with the planting of suitable species it would be a further addition to this highly important and sensitive area in the centre of London.
My Lords, I believe, as I am sure all noble Lords believe, that it was indeed fortunate that the Martin-Buchanan recommendations were never implemented, that time has been, up to date, on our side, and we look forward to the reply which the noble Baroness has to make on the subject. But I also believe that what have to be reconciled are matters which are not entirely reconcilable: the needs of the users of the buildings, the needs of the millions of visitors to London and the Provinces, the users of heavy commercial vehicles in transit through this area and the needs, above all, of the Londoner. If these can all be woven into one sensitive whole, a great benefit will be conferred on future generations.
6.35 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I want to direct my remarks this afternoon primarily to the question of the Broad Sanctuary site—sometimes referred to, as by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, as the Westminster Hospital site and sometimes called the Colonial Office site. It is a site which, as has already been said, has been empty for a great number of years. I, as a former chairman of the planning committee concerned with planning in the central London area, have had a certain amount of involvement over the years with proposals about what in fact should happen on this site.
We have had reference already to the advantage, possibly, of having an area of open space and this idea was embodied in the proposal of the surveyor of Westminster Abbey, Mr. Dykes Bower, which proposed creating a new square in the
450
area of the Westminister Hospital site and involved diverting Victoria Street into Gt. George Street via Storey's Gate. This, on the face of it, might have sounded an imaginative proposal, but on examination it was clear that the diversion of Victoria Street along the lines suggested would have interfered with some valuable historical buildings in Gt. George Street was not therefore one which could be considered.
The other proposal which one knows has been on the stocks for some time is that to build a small, high-security conference centre seating about 300 people on a part of the Westminster Hospital site. In fact, a feasibility study has been carried out in detail by Sir Philip Powell. This would envisage a paved area as well as the building of the conference centre. I understand that this conference centre would be for use for Government purposes, particularly, probably, in connection with meetings necessary in regard to our membership of the EEC. However, although this proposal has been around for some time, there has not seemed to be any immediate hope that finance will become available for the proposal to proceed. Therefore, one is driven back into looking at what might be a short-term use of the site if these longer plans are unlikely to materialise in the near future.
One of the problems ill this particular area has been for many years the question of coach parking. There have been a number of complaints by Members of this House and of another place about the clutter of coaches in this area at certain times of the day, and particularly in the morning. Indeed, this was a matter on which I, in my former capacity, submitted evidence to the Services Committee of the House of Commons; following which there is now an availability for coach parking during the Recess in the car park which exists on the Westminster Hospital site at the present time. My view is that this facility should be made more readily available for coaches because the tourist influx into Westminster Abbey is at its peak during the morning period. Very few tourists, on the whole, visit the Abbey by coach in the afternoon. My thought would have been that, whatever their other needs, the House of Commons could cope with their car parking needs

451
in the large underground car park during the morning period and that there is no need for this additional, extra car park during the morning.
I think that we should remember that there are about 3½ million visitors to the Abbey each year. This is in addition to those who go to the Abbey to worship, so there is a sizeable influx of tourists into this particular area. Therefore, the proposal has been put forward recently—and there has been some publicity of it in the Press—that there should be a tourist centre on the site. I welcome that idea. It is likely that the erection of such a centre would be viewed by the tourist as being an official tourist centre, although the proposal, as I understand it, is that it would be run by a private charity although there would be likely to be an input by the official tourist bodies.
In the circumstances, I think that tourists would no doubt regard this as being an official centre, and therefore it is important that the highest standards should be maintained within such a centre. One of the problems with which we are continually faced every year is stories of tourists having been, as it is said, "ripped off" in one way or another. Therefore, our concern has been particularly to see that any possibility of tourists being "ripped off", whether by ice-cream sellers or sellers of Coke or by a bureau de change when changing money, is lessened to the greatest possible degree. Therefore, we would want to ensure that those interests of the tourists are protected; also that, if such a centre was opened, such souvenir shops as there would be would sell souvenirs of the highest quality.
At present, a bureau de change has to be licensed by the Bank of England and must publish the rates of exchange. Nevertheless, there are situations where the rates of commission which are charged are high. One hopes that, if this proposal goes ahead, the Department of the Environment, in coming to the arrangements, will be able to control the rates of commission being charged and oversee how the allocation of subleases goes forward. If we are establishing a tourist centre on this important site, it is important to ensure in advance that no abuses will occur.
If I may go to some of the wider issues involved in the Question (which I am
452
grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for raising), in the past a study was carried out by the GLC called the "Three Squares Study". This involved looking at the quality of the environment in Trafalgar Square, Leicester Square and Parliament Square, an area of great tourist attraction and public interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, mentioned, it is an area where there are possibilities of pedestrianisation. As a result of that study, there has been an element of pedestrianisation in Leicester Square.
The proposals for Parliament Square were rather costly and so had to be shelved at the time that they were considered. However, one has the feeling that it should be possible to improve the pedestrian environment in Parliament Square. I am very pleased, as is the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that the cleaning process has started. I only wish that the authority of which I was formerly chairman was able to do something about cleaning up Middlesex Guildhall. If we had that building cleaned up it would present a much more pleasant aspect on the northern side of the Square, particularly since the Chartered Surveyors' building has recently been cleaned and presents a pleasant picture.
Those, my Lords, are some of the thoughts that I have about this area of tremendous importance. I do not say that, because it is so important, we should allow ourselves the luxury of delaying decisions still further: I think that it is time that decisions were reached.
6.42 p.m.
Lord MANCROFT: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Molson for putting this Unstarred Question on the Order Paper. He has, to a certain degree, succeeded in shooting my favourite fox. As the noble Baroness is probably by now aware, I have had this Question on the Order Paper every year since the memory of man runneth not to the contrary. I have always had the same answer—not a bad one, either. It was that the Stationery Office site—as we used to call it—then the Westminster Hospital site, cannot be considered in isolation. It has to be considered in consonance with the whole of the Parliament area: the Bridge Street site, the new Foreign Office, and so on. There is a lot

453
to be said for that argument. But if we carry it too far we will not get a final decision until the crack of doom because so many of these decisions are controversial.
We have had many improvements made. Parliament Square has been relaid. At the time, there was a tremendous controversy about that, but we have all forgotten it. The car park in New Palace Yard caused tremendous controversy. The only controversy which still remains is about the statue in the middle. That only goes to show that for every plan for such an important site as this there is bound to be controversy. We have to remember that we have achieved a great deal—both Governments can take credit for this—and the controversy has subsided.
I was glad to hear my noble friend Lord Sandys mention the cleaning and polishing up of the whole of the Whitehall area. This has been a tremendous success. He also mentioned Westminster Abbey. I realise that this is not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, therefore I do not ask the noble Baroness to address herself to it; but I cannot help regretting that it is taking so long to clean Westminster Abbey. It did not take anything like that time to clean St. Paul's. What is the difficulty? Is it because it is a very much older building and therefore a more delicate task? Is it a shortage of men, materials or money? I hope that we shall be told, because it is something to which the public would like to lend a hand.
While on the subject of time—and, heaven knows, the car park took long enough!—why is so much time being spent on repairing the bomb damage round Westminster Hall? I have not seen the statue of Oliver Cromwell for years. It is one of the finest statues in London. It is also interesting because, as your Lordships probably realise, there are only two statues within the curtilage of Parliament: one is the statue of Oliver Cromwell and the other is the statue of Richard Coeur de Lion which is outside our own front door. Richard blankly refused ever to summon Parliament and Oliver Cromwell tried to abolish it. That reflects well upon our logic.
May I ask the noble Baroness how much more she thinks can be done without prejudicing the overall plan? I appreciate that point. We do not want
454
to do anything which cannot be undone and which will ruin the overall concept of this most important site. May I ask about the shops in Bridge Street? I asked her this some months back and I received, if I may say so, a rather brusque answer. I am not going to repeat it in case the noble Baroness follows my example and repeats it again in the House. Perhaps I did not express myself sufficiently tidily. What I was trying to get at was this: the buildings in Bridge Street, where there was the old St. Stephen's Club, will be there for a long time before they are pulled down and rebuilt along any new design. Underneath it are a large number of shops stretching from Westminster Underground Station, round the corner and up to the Post Office in Parliament Street, near the Cenotaph. They are a disgrace. I am not going to mention their names; I do not want to hurt anybody's business, for they are people who never hurt me. Those shops are obviously left there temporarily, everybody thinking that they will be pulled down in five minutes. That is not going to happen. I do not know what the lease situation is, but the shops ought to be put on a much more dignified footing.
I do not want to suggest anything grandiose or sumptuous; that is not necessary. There is a tourist area there, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has pointed out, and most of the customers in those shops are tourists. So are the customers of the shops in the Ponte Vecchio in Florence; so are the customers of the shops on the Rialto in Venice; and so are the customers of the shops in our own Burlington Arcade. Those are all small shops; they are not tawdry, they are not undignified and they are not tatty. Something we can do without a vast expenditure of temper or money is to put the shops on to a much more dignified footing.
Will the noble Baroness give us a word or two about the future of the Foreign Office? Is it going to be covered over? How far have plans progressed for that? If I have ever done anything in my public life of which I was proud it was my success in your Lordships' House many years ago in "dishing" the Government's attempt to put two top storeys on to Carlton House and turn it into a new Foreign Office. We had a splendid debate and the Govern-

455
ment were laughed to scorn. The argument put forward was that, if you stood out in the middle of Horseguards' Parade, you would think that the two top storeys belonged to the buildings behind. If you stood right underneath them you would not be able to see the two top storeys at all. That is the most nonsensical recommendation for a building that I have ever heard! It reminds me of Gilbert and Sullivan's Trial by Jury:
"You'll soon get used to her face, said he;
And a very nice girl you'll find her;
She might very well pass for 43;
In the dusk with the light behind her."
That argument was put forward by Lord Jowitt, who was then Lord Chancellor. Even he was a bit ashamed of it; and, as you know, my Lords, it took a lot to make Lord Jowitt ashamed of anything! I hope we can be told that that scheme has now been put into a long and distant cold storage.
I come back to the point at which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, opened the debate: the Stationery Office site. The reason why I first started to ask questions about it was twofold. First, it was a matter of social disrepute at the time: it was the centre for a gathering of methylated spirit drinkers, of all things. The police did take a poor view of this and steps were taken to make the place a good deal more dignified. It is not yet very dignified but it is a great deal better. I want it to remain open for quite a different reason than that which has been put forward.
I share the dislike of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, of Gothic buildings being left wide open: I prefer them crowded, as they are in places like Rheims and Amiens. But that was not quite my point. My point was that I wanted left open the spelndid view, revealed by the destruction of the Stationery Office, of the Methodist Central Hall. It is one of the best new Baroque buildings in London. It was put up by Lanchester and Ricard just before the First War and it is highly regarded even though—and your Lordships may not remember this—it is incomplete. There should be four little turrets on each corner; and perhaps the Midland Bank or the Methodist fraternity might like to take an example by looking across at Westminster Abbey, remembering that Wren and Hawksmoor put those two towers on the end a long, long time
456
after the Abbey was originally built. But, my Lords, whatever is planned, I do hope that sufficient space will be left open on that site to let that view of the Methodist Central Hall remain as it is now: a very fine adjunct to the whole site.
I hope I have said enough in these few remarks to show that, while I realise that the whole plan must not be prejudiced by some major upheaval, there is still a lot that can be done to enhance this most valuable site without prejudicing a major plan. A great deal can still be done. A great city is judged by the way in which it does two things: in the way in which it treats its heritage and in the way in which it treats its refuse. As any ratepayer in this City will tell you, we treat our refuse abominably. I can only hope that we treat our heritage with a greater respect than we treat our refuse.
6.53 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I wonder whether, before I get down to the specific points put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who introduced the debate and asked his very important Question in the most patient, courteous and kindly of manners, I might crave your indulgence and put the whole problem within a rather wider context in which I personally see it. Since the Great Pyramid of Cheops around BC 3700, since the Palaces of Darius and Xerxes at Persepolis, in BC 500 and since the Parthenon in BC 450, great building works have been symbols of national pride and Government confidence. The style spread by the Romans across the Western European cradle of civilisation during the past 2,000 years is still popular and its derivatives are capable of exciting passion—not least at Chiswick, as we have seen recently. But as some powers have waned others have risen, and the great tide of Gothic architecture that gave us the European cathedrals gave us also, in the Victorian age, the Palace of Westminster and this very Chamber. Alas! my Lords—and this is the point that I personally feel is at the bottom of so many of our problems and indeed of the Government's problems in dealing with this—national pride in building is now far more muted. That is

457
why the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, is a good if uncomfortable one. Of course, there is always the problem of resources to which noble Lords have referred but even more important, I believe, is that this is an area of Government diffidence which does not apply only to the present Government, but which for many years now has applied to all Governments.
We live in a series of Chinese boxes of guilt where grand architectural statements are no longer acceptable to governmental conscience and democratic approval. In Eastern Europe, on the other hand, the wedding cake edifice of architecture is a virile symbol of political power. Here we are swayed by the views of all those who consider it outrageous that Ministers, Members of Parliament and public servants should be comfortably and aesthetically housed when public expenditure cuts are seen to bite on schools, hospitals and motorways. And the greater the expansion of the public sector, the greater the guilt for what is seen as "working-homes for the boys".
There is a real dilemma here. For a democratic Government with heavy social commitments, a balance must be found between enhancement by means of elegant edifice and justifiable spending on restoration and modernisation for Government use. I believe it was the acknowledgment and realisation of what I consider to be these deeper considerations which enabled the noble Lord, Lord Molson, to be so relaxed and so understanding in the way he posed his Question.
These rituals of self-denial make us postpone rescuing, for example, the wonderful but rapidly decaying buildings of Richmond Terrace. We have left Bridge Street and Parliament Street dingily waiting for sunnier financial days; and we still live with a hole of squalid ugliness where Westminster Hospital once stood. However, out of all this delay, financial stringency and crises of conscience, some good, even if it is not apparently visible, has come. If some of the large-scale redevelopment plans of past decades had taken off, we could today have been unhappily tied to buildings, half-buildings and buildings on the stocks which we had already learned to hate and which made no concession to the disparate beauty of historic Whitehall's styles of architecture.
458
I think it was to this that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred. The Banqueting Hall, for example, stands witness to how much of any grand overall plan ever gets built. The Martin Plan for the National Government Centre was abandoned without a brick being laid.
Fortunately, we no longer have faith in the god of Comprehensive Development. We now have the opportunity to preserve and enhance the historic character of Whitehall, as we modernise accommodation in the older buildings, restore empty buildings and redevelop important semi-derelict sites in the area. To be fair, I think we must agree, as has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that much has already been done over the last two decades, but the pace must, of course, depend on the general economic and financial climate and on how high a priority we put on the loving resuscitation of the centre of our Government.
Also, the circumstances for housing civil servants in and around Whitehall have now changed. Dispersal and relocating of jobs outside London will lead to rationalisation of the Government London office estate and, in the long term, to a reduction in the pressure for the accommodation of civil servants in London itself. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, suggests that increasing the amount of Crown building in Whitehall should lead to savings in rents for leased accommodation, and that these savings could help to provide funds for the erection of new buildings. I am afraid that it is not as simple as that. It is true that rationalisation of the civil estate following dispersal should lead to savings in leased accommodation in London, but these will not arise until the 1980s; they will be outside Whitehall and will have the objective of meeting the cost of providing new Crown accommodation in the regions under the dispersal programme. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, asked me about a figure for headquarters department staff who will remain in Whitehall. I understand that the figure will be of the order of 34,000, of which 20,000 will be in Crown accommodation and 14,000 in leased accommodation.
If I may now pass to some of the specific projects mentioned, I will start with the Westminster Hospital site, which is also known as Broad Sanctuary or the

459
Stationery Office site. I say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in answer to the question which he so properly and regularly asks, that we are certainly not—and I certainly am not—talking in terms of taking an overall look. Fortunately, in our whole approach to conservation and restoration we now realise that we must look at things individually or in small pieces. We are still suffering from the period of enormous redevelopment plans when, very late in the day—perhaps, halfway or a third of the way through—it was realised that a mistake, perhaps a very large and long-term mistake, had been made, and certainly where-ever I have any influence I am absolutely opposed to that kind of approach. I am also extremely sorry—perhaps the noble Lord will take me gently aside and tell me what was said—that I was brusque on paper, or in any reply that I made to him. I have no recollection of it, and that is the last thing I would want to be in replying to him or anybody else.
If I may just briefly run over a little of the historical background of this site, although I appreciate that noble Lords have mentioned it and it is not news to anyone, it was originally occupied by Westminster Hospital and was bought by the Government in 1948 for a new Colonial Office. I am going over this history in order to get together in one story the different pieces put forward by various noble Lords. These plans were shelved in the late 1950s, when it was decided, by the Government of which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, was a distinguished member, that the site was too important for offices and should be used for a building of national significance. Since then a plethora of plans have emerged for a new Government international conference centre.
In the 1960s, as has been said, these plans became caught up in the overall development plans for Whitehall, on which Sir Leslie Martin and Sir Colin Buchanan reported in 1965. A public inquiry in 1966 recommended that a single redevelopment proposal should be prepared for the Government's site, plus the adjoining buildings occupied by the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors and the Institution of Civil Engineers. Plans were prepared, but these were overtaken by the movement away from major redevelopment towards
460
conservation. I think it is because of this that many people are now of the opinion that, although the delay has been increased, some terrible mistake has not been made which would have taken generations to get over and put right, if that had been possible.
There have been a number of alternative proposals for use of the site, including turning it into a permanent open space. But the Government decided, and agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that an open space so near to the Royal Parks would be rather a redundant exercise. I am also inclined to agree that, so long as one is able to work in a certain amount of appropriate and relevant landscaping, you do not want to have open spaces among the Gothic buildings.
The Government are still committed to an international conference centre, to which my noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred, and feasibility studies have been carried out by nominated private architects. Although mainly used by Government, any spare capacity could meet the needs of private organisations and bring in foreign capital, as well as enhancing London's prestige and, I hope, its appearance. But the main function and advantage of this building would be to maintain London's position. When we have it, I hope that it will be let for overseas conferences, so that when they are talking we are earning the money, rather than that the talking is being done by us and we are paying for it. But back we come to the question of competing priorities and the opportune moment, and I think on this that we are all agreed that circumstances have not yet been economically propitious for starting new building.
In the meantine, at last—and not before time—the Government are seeking the best alternative use for the site, and I think that to find a use for it really pre-empts the points made by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who is a distinguished chairman of the London Tourist Board as well as having a very long connection with the GLC. We could really solve the problem—or not solve it, depending on which way you look at it—so far as using the site for the parking of cars and coaches is concerned, since, as a short-term measure, the Government are considering proposals for a temporary

461
tourist centre, which would make use of part of the site until it is needed for redevelopment.
I must make it quite clear that no decision has yet been taken, but we must ensure both that the short-term proposals are suitable and aesthetically pleasing for the area and that the long-term proposals are not prejudiced. I can certainly assure my noble friend that any interim plans would, of course, be carefully scrutinised not only by my own Department but also by the Royal Fine Art Commission and the Westminster City Council. I would add that it would be our duty to keep a very keen eye on any concessions that were put out from any organisation, if this did come about.
I should now like to say a word about Cromwell and Cromwell Green, in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Cromwell has been covered up for quite a long time, and the noble Lord will be pleased to hear that he is in extremely good condition, very well cared for and protected. When he is finally unveiled, only a minor amount of cleaning will be necessary. The hoarding has been kept around the site because, until the landscaping and other clearing has been completely finished, we are very concerned that no damage should be done to the statue. We hope that work will begin on the landscaping by 1st April. The hoarding should be removed about a month after that, and the restoration should be complete by the end of July. But the statue will not be uncovered until July, so as to avoid damage while the work is in progress.
I should point out, in addition, that it is proposed that an archaeological dig will be carried out, with the intention of looking for traces of buildings of the time of Richard II and also to establish further the outline of Thorney Island. My latest information from our architects yesterday was that it is not expected to delay completion of the work, which will go on while the dig is continuing.
I now come to Richmond Terrace, which is very close to my conservation heart. It has been unused since 1973 because it was structurally unsound, and in 1975 the Government announced their decision to preserve the facades and commission a feasibility study of ways of providing new accommodation at the
462
rear. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that any idea of the Government having plans to demolish any Grade I building is certainly not under consideration, and would certainly not be "on" at all. In fact, we are trying as hard as we can to encourage people to look after Grade I, Grade II star and Grade II buildings, whether central Government, local authority or individual. But the plans for Richmond Terrace, unfortunately—I say this with a sense of very bitter disappointment because I hastened the feasibility study—had to be shelved when the severe public expenditure cut-backs of 1976 took place.
Again, this ties up with what I said at the beginning of my reply to this Unstarred Question, about Governments almost having to bend over backwards so far as their own activities are concerned, compared with services provided for the people. However, we are now currently considering further feasibility proposals which should result in housing about 1,000 staff. This would be done by building behind the facades but keeping and restoring them: preserving Richmond Terrace and the Whitehall facade between Richmond Mews and Derby Gate.
As well as saving the beautiful Richmond Terrace itself, a major advantage of this scheme would be the provision of substantial additional accommodation in Whitehall which would enable the Government to give up expensive leased accommodation in London. This was a point which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, raised. Again, however, I have to say that, as with the Broad Sanctuary site, any decision to take firm action must depend on the general economic situation. The only hopeful thing I can say is that at least we have gone part of the way by starting a feasibility study on Richmond Terrace, although this is rather different from starting the new building which would have to be built on Broad Sanctuary.
I turn now to the Bridge Street site which was acquired for the new Parliamentary building. I believe that it was on this point that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said that he received a brusque answer. This site is still earmarked for eventual Parliamentary use, but again funds are not yet available for its redevelopment. Until funds become

463
available, we are trying to make the best use of the existing accommodation by granting short leases for certain premises.
This is a slight improvement on the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, has received in the past, because until last August the Property Services Agency were unable to lease out the premises for a longer period than six months. It was then that the House of Commons Accommodation Committee decided that with the new Parliamentary complex hardly beyond the advanced planning stage, it would be possible to grant leases of three years. This helps a little, but I am sure that the noble Lord will agree with me that for even this period of lease it is difficult to attract clients who are prepared to carry out significant alterations or improvements to the premises. The problem is that the buildings are earmarked for eventual demolition. In the meanwhile, we are trying to make the best possible use of the premises, and even for such short leases there has been a certain amount of competition for some of them. I hope this will enable us to be a little firmer about the condition in which those premises are kept.
The all-Party Services Committee in another place are currently considering what recommendations they should make to the Government about the future development of the Parliament Street/Bridge Street site. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, asked me about the line of demarcation. To put it briefly, the answer is that the bulk of the day-to-day decisions about restoration and rebuilding lie with whichever is the relevant Government Department. However, so far as major projects which directly affect the interests of the Houses of Parliament are concerned—that is, the Parliament Street/Bridge Street premises—Parliament is fully consulted. Bridge Street is, of course, ultimately earmarked for Parliamentary use.
One of the Government's current projects is the improvement and modernisation of the Old Public Offices. The Government are preserving and maintaining the structure of the building while putting it to functional use. In future, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will occupy all of the Old Public Offices. That part of the Old Public Offices which was formerly
464
occupied by the Home Office has been vacant, as the noble Lord is aware, since their move to new headquarters in Queen Anne's Mansions last summer. At the end of last year the Government announced their decision to preserve the existing facades of the Old Public Offices and as many as possible of the fine exteriors. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, will recognise that today he would not have to make the valiant fight that he made at that time and which I was delighted that he won.
Extensive reconstruction within the façades was considered but this was found to be too costly. This is another of the problems to be faced when one is dealing with old buildings which require tremendous skill and care to restore. There is also the problem of trying to convert some of the buildings to a particular modern use. However, such conversion was found to be too costly in relation to the traditional accommodation provided. It has therefore been decided to retain the building as it is, but to carry out a programme of improvement and modernisation over the next few years as resources permit—in other words, to try to find a use for the building without spoiling it or incurring the prohibitive expense which would be required to turn it into a Government Department of the kind which previously occupied it. Cleaning and restoration of the stonework and the inner courtyard is already in progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, asked me about Westminster Abbey. As he quite rightly pointed out, the Government have no locus so far as Westminster Abbey is concerned, since its maintenance is the responsibility of the Dean and Chapter. However, I understand that the major restoration work which is now in progress is being financed entirely by means of private donations. The work has to keep pace with the rate of the available incoming funds. The Dean and Chapter seem to be very pleased with the current rate of progress, although the noble Lord would prefer it to be faster. The results are beginning to show and restoration is proceeding very well, but I believe that the noble Lord will find that the problem is largely a financial one.
I hope that I have convinced the House, although I have not been able, as the noble Lord, Lord Molson, foresaw, to give any

465
specific answers or to indicate any great progress. However, I strongly share the view that we must do our best to preserve and enhance this historic area of London. Certainly I promise, for what it is worth, that anything I can do to speed along this process I will, for all the reasons which have been mentioned, and many more besides. Important but unobtrusive work continues daily.
We are all aware of the recent restoration of Dover House and of the work carried out to Inigo Jones' Banqueting House. A great deal of stonework has been cleaned and restored throughout Whitehall, most recently the Horse Guards building, and plans are afoot to modernise several buildings in the area as part of a nationwide office improvement programme for Government offices. The largest of these programmes is scheduled for the Great George Street offices and the old War Office building. I find the most satisfactory part of all this to be that the approach now is the right one. The problem is being looked at in the right way—by means of a combination of conservation and preservation, where that is possible; and where modernisation is needed it should fit in with and enhance the whole area.
Finally, as my noble friend has pointed out, our tourist industry is increasing all the time. Today it is one of our most valuable invisible exports, for 11 million domestic visitors and 9 million overseas visitors came to London in 1977. It is safe to say that the majority of these visitors found themselves at some point in the Whitehall area looking at the Houses of Parliament, visiting Westminster Abbey and going up Whitehall to see the changing of the guard. When I hear the warm tributes that are paid to London and the real affection that people have for our city and for our people, I believe that we have an added financial and national incentive to make the centre of the world's oldest democracy worthy of its history and pride.
The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, was quite right when he spoke about the two problems of refuse and heritage. It is absolutely true that the shoddier a place looks, the shoddier will be the way that people deal with it and treat it. One of the very important reasons, apart from the matter of our own visual, aesthetic heritage, why it is essential that we should,
466
as soon as we possibly can, give this the highest priority is that only by restoring it and only by making it a centre of which we can be proud when we look at it and walk around it, as well as being proud of the feeling that we have for it, will we also be able to encourage and educate and persuade people to treat one of the most important centres of this magnificent city in the way in which it should be treated.

CUSTOMS ANNUITY AND BENEVOLENT FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
COMMITTEE OF SELECTION
Second Report from the Select Committee made and to be printed.