Lords Sitting of 28 June 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 Newcastle.

LORD MISHCON
Victor Mishcon, Esquire, having been created Baron Mishcon, of Lambeth in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Greenwood of Rossendale and the Lord Rayne.

ROMANIA: BRITISH TECHNOLOGICAL AID
2.47 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: 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 which promises in the field of human rights made by Romania in the 1947 Peace Treaty and in the Helsinki Final Act President Ceausescu has undertaken to carry out in return for the large increase proposed in the provision of British technology; and whether they will give an assurance that the latter is consistent in every respect with our COCOM obligations.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Romania's undertakings in the 1947 Peace Treaty and in the Final Act have not been directly linked with agreements on the transfer of technology. These agreements will be subject to full observance of our COCOM obligations.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, does the noble Lord recollect that on 24th May I urged Her Majesty's Government to recognise the link that ought to exist between the provision of modern British
304
technology, sometimes based on cheap credits, and the Soviet Union's attitude to human rights? However, I was told in reply that my views were misconceived and oversimplified. Your Lordships were reminded that the Soviet Union is one of the two great States of the world. I should very much like to ask why it is that Her Majesty's Government seem clearly to recognise the link between British trade and sometimes aid and a régime's attitude to human rights where that regime is not a Communist one; whereas if it is a Communist one, as the Soviet Union and the Soviet satellites in Europe are, this link is not recognised at all. Does not that leave the Government open to charges of making false distinctions and of adopting double standards?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the question was rightly addressed to the recent agreements with the Romanian authorities. I can assure the noble Lord that negotiations with Romania were based throughout on normal commercial considerations. Standard ECGD cover will be available for the contract and there is no question of a Government subsidy. These negotiations must necessarily be dealt with one by one, according to the circumstances of each case. I have no doubt that in regard to the negotiations with Romania a few weeks ago, which were headed by their President, this country and Romania will, indeed, derive very considerable economic and, it may be, political advantage from the agreement that we have so far concluded.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, if reports are correct, what sort of commercial sense does it make to license the Romanian Government to manufacture 80 BAC 1–11s and 225 Rolls-Royce Spey engines—an amount far in excess of their own requirements which will simply enable them to export about half those numbers?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the commercial and economic sense of this is partly for Government and partly, I should imagine, for Aerospace to decide. I would say to the noble Lord that the total value to the United Kingdom of the Aerospace deal is likely to exceed £300 million in the next 15 years; and even allowing for some offset, which is almost

305
inescapable in most of these negotiations, as he and I know, there is a substantial gain to our balance of payments.
Indeed, British Aerospace are to receive an immediate down payment of £1 million as proof of earnestness, and this deal will contribute considerably to employment in the aerospace and related industries. It is not at the moment possible to quantify the amount of the employment that will be generated but it will, I am assured, be considerable. I referred in my first Answer to the possible political as well as economic advantages of this kind of negotiation. I am myself as cautious as the noble Lord about this type of negotiation, but I am absolutely convinced that nothing but progress in the political as well as the economic field will result from these negotiations.

NHS: PATIENTS AND INDUSTRIAL ACTION
2.51 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 what arrangements are being made to safeguard the lives and wellbeing of patients in hospital and awaiting admission during the present work-to-rule.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I assume the noble Lord is referring to the recent industrial action taken by hospital electricians, and I know that he and Members of your Lordships' House will welcome their decision on Monday last to resume normal working. The responsibility, as your Lordships know, for making arrangements for the safety and wellbeing of patients lies with the Area Health Authorities to ensure that urgent cases are treated urgently.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, and recognise that the work-to-rule has finished. I think that the question covers the whole field of contingency planning, and I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government are updating their red warning system.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I endeavoured on Monday to point out that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had met representatives of the various groups of persons employed within the National Health Service with a view to discussing whether some sort of agreement can be reached to ensure that a situation of this kind does not reach the stage at which this particular situation arrived last week. It is hoped that, as a result of these discussions, it will be possible to work out some kind of arrangement whereby grievances are dealt with immediately.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, is it not time that we considered whether there should be no right to strike in certain types of employment, in consequence of which they would get compensating pay, rights to arbitration, and so on? Time and time again throughout the nation we are being put at peril by small groups of people in vital industries, lives are threatened, the economy is threatened, and everything else is threatened. It would be perfectly simple to have terms of employment that did not provide a right to strike.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this raises very real problems on whether or not people who are employed have the right or not to withdraw their labour. I think it has been generally considered in our particular society that people have the right to do that. It is sometimes very unfortunate, and nobody would approve of some of the actions that are taken from time to time. Nevertheless, this raises a grave point. It is not one that has escaped my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and we are hoping that in the future we shall be able, so far as the public service is concerned, to arrive at some sort of formula where it will be unnecessary for these work-to-rules and strikes to take place.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it would be true to say that, while it would perhaps be very desirable in such a case to prohibit strikes, certainly it would not be very simple?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I would agree, my Lords.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, while acknowledging the assurance that any grievances would be dealt with immediately, does not the noble Lord think it is unrealistic to suppose that this will in every case avoid industrial action and withdrawal of labour? Bearing that in mind, should not the Secretary of State take the lead by calling the Area Health Authorities together to see whether a set of procedures could be devised for ensuring that urgent cases are dealt with in the urgent way he suggested, rather than to leave it to the Area Health Authorities to make up their minds independently on how to tackle each case as it comes along?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am obliged for the contribution made by the noble Lord. What I was trying to say is that if my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, together with the various representatives, as I mentioned on Monday last, of the trade unions involved—the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives—get together and agree on a procedure, then that procedure would be passed on to the Whitley Council for general approval which would then apply, as I understand the situation, in each of the Area Health Authorities.
Baroness HYLTON-FOSTER: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether he knows if any lives were lost during the go-slow?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my understanding is that there were no serious repercussions at all. Because of the fact that the electricians decided to resume normal working after seven days of restricted working, the position did not become a serious one at all.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that often in trade union life when one negotiates one is so often fobbed off by the employers, or whatever committee controls your employment; that men get exasperated and may decide to take action? I think they did that in the House of Commons last night to draw attention to their situation on pensions, and nobody would have taken notice had they not gone on three hours' strike.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it may be that some noble Lords do not recognise that a large number of people—and it is true of many grades in the National Health Service—who, because they are in the public service, do not get the same financial rewards as those working in similar capacities in the private sector. If I may say so, this is part of the problem.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that a great number of people will wish the Government well in settling this dispute and hope that they will arrange a permanent procedure? May I take up the problem raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, and ask the Government whether, arising out of this, it would be possible for them to examine some means of settling wage disputes more sensibly and preserve the industries in which these men work?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is part of a very wide question of which, as I say, my right honourable friend is not unmindful, and apart from what I have said we hope to achieve a wage structure which is obviously a matter that has to be considered.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us any idea of the timing of the investigation to which he referred? Is he aware that there is a growing feeling in this country, quite apart from any Party affiliation, that the damage we suffer from strikes taken too often as a matter of first resort rather than last resort is something that it is harder to tolerate than it was in the past? In this particular field of health, where people's lives are at stake, it is literally becoming intolerable. I am not suggesting for one moment that one should take away the right to strike, but the kind of procedures the noble Lord is referred to are matters of great urgency, and I hope that the Government are at least putting some informal timetable to the parties concerned under which they will be expected to come forward with a procedure.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I know the mind of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on this matter; this is something he wants to resolve, so far as the procedure is concerned, very quickly. I think the noble

309
Lord, who has had a great deal of experience in this field, will realise that when one is dealing with a number of different groups within the National Health Service, of necessity it will take a little time.

AFRICAN MILITARY FORCE PROPOSAL
3.1 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what policy they are adopting towards the proposal to establish an African military force with European support.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is for the African Governments themselves to decide on the measures needed to guarantee their security. The attitude of the United Kingdom and of its European partners would have to be considered in the light of the circumstances in each case. In particular, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in New York on 26th June:
"We should take into account that the use of force brings few lasting solutions, and that the purpose of assistance would be to create the conditions for negotiation, not to replace it."
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether he is aware that the proposals put forward by the French in particular for a force organised and led by Europeans to maintain the status quo in Africa would endanger the lives of British citizens living in that Continent? Is he aware that, during the recent disastrous troubles in the Shaba Province of Zaire, it was the French citizens who were picked out for discriminatory treatment because of the intervention of French forces in the previous year? Would he agree that Africans have shown themselves to be unwilling to be the pawns in any form of cold war between East and West, and they are determined to settle their problems in their own way?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think my noble friend's final remark is wholly unexceptional; we should indeed very strongly hope that Africans, acting in unison and, where they request it, being helped by their friends in other parts of the world, particularly in Europe, would indeed take their own steps to guarantee their own security. The Heads of Government of the States forming the Organisation of African Unity will be meeting in Khartoum next month, in July, and no doubt the considerations which my noble friend has advanced will be considered very carefully by them. So far as we are concerned, the Prime Minister has stated very clearly our own attitude and that of our partners; we stand ready to assist in every way possible any initiative on which Africans as a whole are agreed. Once more we emphasise the important role which the OAU, the Organisation of African Unity, has in any such possible development.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, if, as I think, part of the intention of the setting up of this African force was to rescue civilians in the kind of difficulties in which they were in Kolwezi, and if it does not happen, as appears likely, would the Government assure the House that they have contingency plans for the rescue of British civilians in other countries where circumstances might arise in a similar manner to those which arose in Kolwezi?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I think I can give the assurance, my Lords, that there are contingency plans for known possibilities of hazard for British citizens in certain circumstances in certain countries. Naturally, some countries are more prone to disturbance than others, and our plans are more specific in those cases; but I think I can give a general assurance to the noble Lord. I would carry from that question the injunction that one should check on this constantly, as it is necessary to do.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Africans have not been permitted to settle their problems in their own way because of Soviet intrusion—the sending of official advisers to the territory as well as the provision of modern equipment, weapons of war and the intrusion of Cuban forces—so making

311
it impossible to give any guarantee whatever that they can protect British subjects? In the circumstances, would it not be advisable for NATO, in association with the various European countries, to consider the proposition of entering into discussions with some of the African countries with a view to creating some kind of military force, or even a negotiating commission, to give us the assurance that British subjects operating in Africa, and the subjects of other countries, can be protected?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I entirely agree with my noble friend, my Lords, and of course he will join me in emphasising the importance of our avoiding any reproach of neo-colonialism in this matter. Nevertheless, where there is a contingency and a clear hazard to British citizens and other citizens, we should be prepared to act. Indeed, that is what happened in Zaire, principally through the intervention of the French and Belgians; effectively, but only after great loss of life by Europeans. We made available certain assistance, which was not in the event necessary but it was there, ready to be provided. I accept from what my noble friend said the need that we should be ready to intervene in circumstances of hazard.
I shall not for the moment comment on the first part of his supplementary question, in which he spoke of Soviet intrusion and Cuban incursion, more than to say that it is a basic principle and a worthwhile one that no one should intervene in any other country except at the clear and genuine invitation of the Government of that country. Where that happens, of course we have no complaint, any more than others would have complaint if we were to respond to an invitation from any country in Africa or anywhere else that we should enter there to help them. It is a question of the invitation of the local Government; that is the touchstone whereby these appearances, these interventions, should be judged.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON:
May I ask the Minister to say what he means by "Government" in this context, my Lords? Where, for instance, our own citizens are in bitter danger and the local Government do not have the
312
power to assist or provide security within their borders, are we to let them be slaughtered?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords, we are not to let them be slaughtered. We need to be ready for all contingencies so far as we possibly can and to act whenever it is necessary, preferably with our friends in Europe and with our friends in Africa.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, is it not a fact that the de facto Government of Rhodesia have asked for some time for our assistance, and have we not refused it?
Several noble Lords: Answer!
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I could not quite hear the noble Lord's question, my Lords. Perhaps he would repeat it.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord said that any country in Africa that asks for our help would get it. The de facto Government of Rhodesia have recently asked for our help. We have refused it. Is that not the case?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I said, the Government of a country in Africa. The noble Lord said the "de facto" Government of a country in Africa.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a simple question? Is he aware that we are unable to quell the slaughter in Ireland? Apparently we have been asked to undertake the quelling of the slaughter and imperial neo-colonialist activities in various parts of the world, as it occurs to the Opposition. Is it not time we reassessed our role in world affairs as a non-imperial Power in the future?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think we are all agreed that we should do what is necessary to the fullest extent of our preparation and powers wherever British citizens are in hazard. This we are trying to do in Northern Ireland. This we are trying to do whenever these circumstances arise in any other part of the world. I have emphasised that we are better able to do it in certain

313
parts of the world, including Africa, in collaboration with our friends and allies in Europe and other parts of the world, including our friends in Africa.

EMPLOYMENT (CONTINENTAL SHELF) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
THEATRES TRUST (SCOTLAND) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND ELECTRICITY (FINANCE) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM BILL [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill No. [86] as first printed for the Commons]
[No. 1.]
Clause 5, page 6, line 16, after 'country' insert '(subject to such exceptions, if any, as may be specified in the order)'.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This Amendment is designed to ensure that an order made under Clause 5(1) may specify exceptions to the provisions which are applied to a non-Convention country by the order.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[Lord Harris of Greenwich.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 2.]
Schedule 1, page 9, line 25, at end insert—
'(g) section 48 (rape).'
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. This Amendment is necessitated by the coming into operation on 22nd April 1978 of the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. That order defines the offence of rape in Northern Ireland law in the same way as the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 does for the offence of rape in the law of England and Wales.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—[Lord Harris of Greenwich.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATE IMMUNITY BILL [H.L.]
3.15 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill No. 100 as first printed for the Commons.]
[No. 1.]
Clause 3, page 2, line 40, leave out from 'means' to end of line 8 on page 3 and insert—

'(a) any contract for the supply of goods or services;

(b) any loan or other transaction for the provision of finance and any guarantee or indemnity in respect of any such transaction or of any other financial obligation; and

(c) any other transaction or activity (whether of a commercial, industrial, financial, professional or other similar character) into which a State enters or in which it engages otherwise than in the exercise of sovereign authority;'

The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth

315
agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. It may be convenient for me to remind the House that this Bill restricts the immunity which sovereign States can claim from the jurisdiction of civil courts and tribunals in the United Kingdom. Its broad effect will be that, in future, States will not be able to claim immunity in respect of any act which could also have been done by a private individual, and the provisions of the Bill will be advantageous to this country.
The purpose of the first Amendment, which is the most important of the series to be moved, is to expand in two respects the general exception from immunity of all commercial transactions entered into by a State. In the definition of "commercial transactions" in Clause 3(3)(b) of the Bill, the words:
"any loan raised by a State irrespective of the purposes for which the borrowed money is to be applied"
are expanded by the Amendment to:
"any loan or other transaction for the provision of finance and any guarantee or indemnity in respect of any such transaction or of any other financial obligation".
That means that there will be no immunity in respect of loans regardless of whether the State is the lender, as sometimes happens in the case of States with surplus oil revenues, or the borrower. There is also to be no immunity where the State gives a guarantee or an indemnity. Secondly, Clause 3, as amended, will ensure that there is no immunity in the case of supply of goods or services by, as well as to, a State. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for this Amendment. It goes some way to meet many of the objections that were raised in your Lordships' House and during the debates in another place. In particular, it takes into account the comments made by my right honourable friend Sir Michael Havers that a State should not have a right to claim immunity when it is acting as guarantor. That has been included in paragraph (b) of the Amendment—and for this we are grateful.
It is, of course, clear that the difficulty of defining the exercise of sovereign
316
authority is not entirely removed by this new clause, but my noble friends and I feel that the clause has gone as far as it can in any practical terms. Obviously the question of whether the exercise of sovereign authority is in fact used will have to be a matter for the courts when they look into the nature and purpose of the transaction itself. However, so far as it goes, we welcome this Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am grateful for that information from the noble Baroness. These Amendments—indeed the Bill itself—are the product of much consultation. I am happy that there is reasonable assurance about it in a highly technical field.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 2.]
Clause 9, page 5, line 16, leave out 'in or according to the law of the United Kingdom'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in Amendment No 2. Clause 9 of the Bill provides that where a State has agreed in writing to submit a dispute to arbitration in, or according to, the law of the United Kingdom, the State is not immune as respects proceedings which relate to the arbitration. The Amendment removes the links with the United Kingdom, and by deleting the reference to the United Kingdom or its law, it will ensure that a State has no immunity in respect of enforcement proceedings for any foreign arbitral award. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 3 and 4.]
Clause 11, page 6, line 18, after 'for' insert '(a)'
Clause 11, page 6, line 19, at end add 'or
(b) rates in respect of premises occupied by it for commercial purposes.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 en bloc. These Amendments add rates for commercially used premises to the classes of charges

317
for which no immunity from proceedings can be claimed by foreign States. The United Kingdom rating authorities at present levy and collect rates on premises occupied by foreign Governments where they are used for commercial purposes. Premises used for diplomatic or consular purposes, on the other hand, are exempt, except as regards the beneficial element of the rates; that is, services such as street lighting or drainage from which the occupier is deemed to derive direct benefit, as I hope is indeed the case. The present omission of rates from Clause 11 could have an adverse effect on the willingness of foreign Governments to pay rates on commercial property, and the Amendments are intended to avoid any possible misunderstanding about their obligations. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, I trust that it is in order for me to raise a question at this point. Would there be any danger that foreign Governments might tax British embassies and other British premises abroad under various heads, such as rates, in a much heavier way than we do if we do this in the United Kingdom? Has this point been taken into account in the consideration of this matter in another place?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that it has been taken into account. There is usually a reciprocity about this kind of measure, and I am advised that there is no danger of serious consequential damage to our interests in the way which the noble Lord has rightly asked about.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.22 p.m.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 5 and 6.]
Clause 13, page 7, leave out lines 23 to 25.
Clause 13, page 7, line 34, leave out from 'property' to 'which' in line 35.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 en bloc. It may be
318
convenient if we also consider at the same time Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 are merely paving Amendments for Amendment No. 11 and, in turn, Amendment No. 12 is consequential. Thus, the Amendment of importance is No. 11. This deals, first, with the immunities to be enjoyed by separate State entities which could claim immunity, but have submitted to jurisdiction; and, secondly, with the special position of central banks. The Amendments replace by precise and comprehensive provisions references which are at present found in different places in Clauses 13 and 14 of the Bill and which were open to some doubts. They confer complete immunity from the processes of seizure or restraint on all property of central banks.
The new subsection (2A) provides that, when a separate entity, not being a central bank or other monetary authority, submits to the jurisdiction in respect of proceedings where it would be entitled to immunity by virtue of Clause 14(2), subsections (1) to (4) of Clause 13 apply to it so that it is subject to the same rules as a State would be in respect of immunity from execution and from injunctions and other compulsory processes.
The new subsection (2B) brings all the present provisions about central banks together in one place, and, in addition, confers immunity from injunctions and similar orders on such banks. It ensures that a central bank or other monetary authority shall have the same immunity with regard to execution, or in respect of relief by way of injunction or order for specific performance or for the recovery of land or other property as a State will have, irrespective of whether the central bank is a separate entity or is acting in the exercise of sovereign authority.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No.7.]
Clause 13, page 7, line 39, leave out from 'if' to end of line 41 and insert—

('a) the process is for enforcing a judgment which is final within the meaning of section 18(1)(b) below and the State has

319
made a declaration under Article 24 of the Convention; or

(b) the process is for enforcing an arbitration award.'

The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7. As at present drafted, the combined effect of Clause 13(2)(b) and Clause 13(4) is to allow the enforcement of a judgment against commercial property, other than ships, belonging to a State which is a party to the European Convention and which has not made a declaration under Article 24, but not to permit such enforcement of arbitration awards. There is no good reason for making this distinction. As a result of the Amendment, arbitral awards can be enforced against the commercial property of a State, irrespective of whether or not it is a party to the European Convention.
Moved, that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 8.]
Clause 13, page 7, line 42, leave out from '(5)' to 'to' in line 44 and insert 'The head of a State's diplomatic mission in the United Kingdom, or the person for the time being performing his functions, shall be deemed to have authority to give on behalf of the State any such consent as is mentioned in subsection (3) above and, for the purposes of subsection (4) above, his certificate.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. The purpose of the Amendment is to meet the criticisms that, whereas Clause 2(7) specifies who may submit to proceedings on behalf of the State, there is no provision in Clause 13 as to who should be deemed to be entitled to give the consent of the State to execution or to the issue of relief against it by way of injunction and similar remedies. The new clause provides that it is the Head of the State's diplomatic mission who shall be deemed to be competent to give such consent.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 9 and 10.]
Clause 13, page 8, line 15, leave out 'and'
Clause 13, page 8, line 17, at end add 'and the reference in subsection (4)(b) above to "an arbitration award" as a reference to "a decree arbitral".
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 en bloc. This is a Scottish Amendment consequential on the insertion of subsection (4)(b), which refers to "enforcing an arbitration award". Subsection (6) translates English terms into the terms known to Scottish lawyers—ever a source of mystery to English and Welsh lawyers—and the technical term for an arbitration award in Scotland is a "decree arbitral".
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 11 and 12.]
Clause 14, page 8, leave out lines 38 to 40 and insert—
'2(A) If a separate entity (not being a State's central bank or other monetary authority) submits to the jurisdiction in respect of proceedings in the case of which it is entitled to immunity by virtue of subsection (2) above, subsections (1) to (4) of section 13 above shall apply to it in respect of those proceedings as if references to a State were references to that entity.
2(B) Property of a State's central bank or other monetary authority shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (4) of section 13 above as in use or intended for use for commercial purposes; and where any such bank or authority is a separate entity subsections (1) to (3) of that section shall apply to it as if references to a State were references to the bank or authority.'
Clause 14 page 9, line 2, leave out 'subsection (2)' and Insert 'subsections (2) and 2A)'.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12, upon which I have already commented.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I wish to express gratitude on behalf of my

321
noble friends for the acceptance of the Amendment, which was substantially introduced by my right honourable friend in another place. We consider that the Amendment considerably improves the Bill in relation to central banks, and we are grateful for the Government's attitude towards it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 13.]
Clause 23, page 14, line 1, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) Subject to subsection 3(A) below, Parts I and II of this Act do not apply to proceedings in respect of matters that occurred before the date of the coming into force of this Act and, in particular, sections 3, 4 and 9 do not apply in the case of any transaction, contract or arbitration agreement entered into before that date.
(3A) Sections 2 and 12 above apply to any proceedings instituted after the coming into force of this Act.'
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. This Amendment is intended to clarify the transitional impact of the Bill. Clause 23(3) at present provides that the Bill does not apply to proceedings in respect of matters that occurred before the coming into force of this Bill, but it has a number of defects. First, a reference to matters occurring before the coming into force of the Bill leaves an ambiguity where the proceedings concern a breach of contract—namely, is the relevant matter the date of conclusion of the contract or the date of the breach of it? In relation to clauses concerned with contracts or other agreements (Clauses 3, 4 and 9 are applicable), it is made clear that the Bill is not to apply unless the agreement was entered into before the Bill comes into force. Secondly a separate subsection (3)(a) provides that the two clauses which deal with procedural matters (Clauses 2 and 12), are to apply to any proceedings instituted after the Bill comes into force. There are other minor improvements in the Amendment.
Moved, That this House cloth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am reminded that I should call Amendment No. 13A, and I am most
322
grateful to my noble friend Lord Strabolgi for his agile intervention, if I may so describe it.
3.32 p.m.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 13A as an Amendment to Amendment No. 13:

LORDS AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 13A.]
In subsection (3), line 4, leave out ("3, 4 and 9 do not apply in the case of any") and insert ("2(2), 3, 4, and 9 do not apply in the case of any written agreement,").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am even more grateful for the agility of the noble Lord opposite which has allowed me to move my Amendment No. 13A before a decision is taken on Amendment No. 13. With the permission of your Lordships' House, I think it is important very briefly to enter into a short history of this Amendment in order that it should not be thought in another place that we are trying to improve on something they have produced when we are almost going back to the status quo of the Bill as it left your Lordships' House. An Amendment was moved by myself at the Committee stage of this Bill in this House to prevent the effect of the Bill being retrospective. This Amendment was powerfully and convincingly supported at the time by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien of Lothbury, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack did take into account what was said during the Committee State of the Bill.
I withdrew my Amendment owing to the defects in drafting, and the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack himself produced an Amendment at the Report Stage of the Bill. If I may quote, he said at the Report stage in the Official Report on 23rd March, column 1940:
"It was put—and I fully sympathise with the argument—that the United Kingdom should not be seen to be acting in a way that would alter retrospectively the terms and conditions of existing agreements, or upset the basis on which foreign States might have taken past decisions".
Those were his words when he moved his Amendment at the Report stage of the Bill. I should say that we had a very short time in which to consider all these Amendments; we had something like two working days between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and the full effects of both

323
my Amendment and the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord were not fully taken into account. When the Bill went to another place, the Government submitted a further Amendment, which is now in effect Amendment No. 13, which is for our consideration.
The effect of my Amendment would be that written agreements which were made before the passing of this Act would fall within the matters which would be excluded. My Amendment would remove any element of retrospection, which I believe to be in conformity with fundamental principles of the English system of law as we know it. This matter was debated in another place and, as I understand it from my reading of both the Committee stage and the Report stage in another place, it was left for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to reconsider this particular Amendment and possibly to take into account further Amendments. I should like to add here that not only is any retrospective legislation contrary to accepted principles within our system but that I believe it would be contrary to the spirit of the Convention whose Article 35 we are seeking to implement.
Furthermore—and this is one of the most important points in my argument for putting forward this Amendment—it could be detrimental to the good name of legal advisers who, when the agreements were drawn up, could say with safety, and indeed in truth, that this clause has no legal effect because in the United Kingdom the rule of absolute immunity obtains. If Section 2, or Clause 2 as it is now, is retained in 3A of the Commons Amendments, this would not only no longer be true but would have a retrospective effect on those written agreements which had been entered into between either an individual or a body corporate and a foreign State; and I am quite certain that your Lordships would agree that this would have a most undesirable effect. There are very large sums involved in agreements which have been negotiated between authorities and corporations in the City of London and foreign States. Based on the good name of Britain, and as the law stood at the time the agreements were made, it was always assumed that undertakings of States to waive immunity could never be enforced.
The purpose of this Amendment is to remove any retrospective effect of this Bill, when it comes into force, on those written agreements. If this Amendment is accepted, legal advisers, who not only now but in the future have to advise States on the question of immunity, will be able to say that we do not pass retrospective legislation, and nothing will affect the present contract which we are making. I would add that this is often apparently a major element in this kind of negotiation. Which system of law should apply, and where these contracts should be made, is considered according to whether a State is likely to pass retrospective legislation. I think we have a good name for this in our own system of law, and I should therefore like to ensure that these Amendments are accepted in order to uphold that legal tradition. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have given consideration to this highly technical matter. I do not think that there is any real element of retrospection involved in the Bill as it now stands, but as it appears that not only the noble Baroness but other distinguished people in the City seem to take a different view, I certainly would not want to sully the reputation of the City. Nevertheless, I ought to point out that, even if the Amendments now proposed are agreed to, they will not necessarily have the effect of preserving the ability of foreign States who disregard past written agreements of theirs to submit to the jurisdiction of our courts.
The effect of those agreements will continue to be determined at common law. Since the Court of Appeal majority decision in the Trendtex case, it is at least probable that all the types of contracts, in which these agreements to submit are found, are themselves of a commercial character which allows no State immunity; so I do not think the occasion to rely on the invalidity of the written agreement will arise. However, I do not quarrel with the view of some that the impression at any rate may be created that we are engaged in retrospective legislation, and if the noble Baroness wishes to press these Amendments I shall certainly not seek to gainsay her.
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
Baroness ELLES Baroness ELLES moved Amendment No. 13B as a Lords Amendment to Commons Amendment No. 13:

LORDS AMENDMENT TO COMMONS AMENDMENT
In subsection (3A), line 1, leave out ("Sections 2 and 12 above apply") and insert ("Section 12 above applies").
On Question, Amendment to the Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Commons Amendment No. 13, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to thank the noble and learned Lord for his agreement to my Amendments, and may I also take this opportunity to thank the City of London solicitors, who have contributed to the improvement of this Bill throughout its stages.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that. As I said at the end of the discussion on the Amendments, I hope we have got it right. More I cannot hope for, I am afraid.
Bill returned to the Commons with the Amendments to the Commons Amendment.

PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL
3.42 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 3a.— (Baroness Faithfull.)
On Question, Bill read 3a with the Amendments.
Clause 1 [Indecent photographs of children]:
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert—
"( ) Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (1)(a) above, it shall be a defence for him to prove that he had a legitimate reason for taking the photographs or permitting them to be taken."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to draw attention to a particular problem which
326
was discussed briefly by your Lordships at Committee stage. Perhaps I might say at once that I have not the slightest intention of pressing this Amendment to a Division this afternoon. I hope that the discussion might enable the Government to reconsider their position on this matter before the Bill comes to be considered in the other place for the first time; and it will in fact be the first time that the other place has considered this Bill in its present form.
The problem arises in this way. Under Clause 1(1)(b) of the Bill, it is an offence to distribute or show indecent photographs; and under Clause 1(1)(c) it is an offence to have indecent photographs in one's possession with a view to their being distributed or shown by others. There is provided in Clause 1(4), just over the page, a statutory defence to anybody who is charged under either of those two subsections; namely, that that person had a legitimate reason for distributing or showing the photographs, or for having them in their possession. There is, however, no statutory defence provided under the Bill to any offence which is alleged under Clause 1(1)(a)—the taking, or the permitting to be taken, of any indecent photograph of a child. The purpose of this Amendment would be to provide a person charged under Clause 1(1)(a) with a similar defence; namely, it would be a defence for such a person to prove that he had a legitimate reason for taking the photographs or for permitting them to be taken.
All I have in mind on this matter is that there appear to be certain categories of people who may, with entirely legitimate reasons, take or permit to be taken photographs of children which may in fact be regarded as indecent. During the Committee stage there were mentioned, for example, police officers who have the unpleasant task of taking close-up photographs of children's private parts after an allegation of some sexual offence, for example, or medical experts who may wish to take photographs for the purposes of including those photographs in genuine medical textbooks dealing with particular conditions. I have had the duty of looking at such photographs from time to time. I can assure your Lordships that some of them are extremely unpleasant. Some of them undoubtedly might be regarded as indecent, and undoubtedly might fetch

327
sums of money if they were traded in on the pavements of Soho. It seems a little unfair that a person who has such a genuine, legitimate reason for taking or permitting such photographs to be taken should find himself without any defence at all under this Bill, when it is an Act, except, of course, that he would have to rely on the benevolence of the Director of Public Prosecutions, who might obviously in such circumstances say that he would not wish to consent to a prosecution.
I have been in correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on this matter. What he says, if I may quote his letter about this particular matter, is simply this:
"In so far as the police investigation of crime or medical research require, for example, explicit photographs of the genitalia of children, we regard it as preferable to rely on their being regarded as lying outside the definition of the offence";
coupled, of course, with the requirement of the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I find it difficult to understand the observation,
"we regard it as preferable to rely on their being regarded as lying outside the definition of the offence",
because if they are in fact indecent photographs they will be covered by this Bill in its present terms.
May I say at once that one of the reasons why I would not seek to press this matter further than to draw attention to it today is that I suspect that there will be very few prosecutions brought under this clause at all when the Bill becomes law, and it may very well be that there will never be a prosecution in which the issue arises, which I have indicated to your Lordships is nevertheless one that might arise. But it would appear that if we are putting legislation on the Statute Book it might perhaps be desirable that we should put it on the Statute Book in its best possible form. In those circumstances, and for those very limited reasons, I beg to move this Amendment.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, addressed himself to the Government on this Amendment. I have been very puzzled of late to know whose Bill this is. I thought this was a Private Member's Bill. It certainly came as a Private
328
Member's Bill from another place, and it is being sponsored by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull; who, if I may say so with great respect, seems to have acted as a kind of midwife to this Bill and left its care mostly to my noble friend the Minister of State. I should have thought that, being a Private Member's Bill, we listen to the advice of the Government but we do not let it swarm over the whole proceedings and take charge of the Bill. So I think that here we have an Amendment which the House is entitled to consider on its merits; and I rather regret that the noble Lord who has just spoken always seems to precede what he has to say by assuring the House that they will not be troubled with a Division. Why should the House not be troubled with a Division if there is something upon which strong feelings exist?
I support this Amendment because it strengthens the position of a person who may have a legitimate reason when faced with a charge under Clause 1(1)(a). I am afraid that it had escaped me that the debate on legitimate reasons which we have had twice already related to a charge under Clause 1(1)(b) or (c), which, as the noble Lord pointed out, was to do with showing or distributing, and not with taking, the photograph of which complaint is made. I think that a Bill as draconian as this, which exposes persons to the caprice, to the prejudices and to the emotions of a jury, or, if I may say so with respect, of a judge (and, after all, judges are quite human, at least when you meet them off the bench, and I assume they are when they are on it) should provide that this defence is available to a person so charged.
I know that those who claim to be the initiators of this Bill are shrill in their objections to having any legitimate reason as a defence in the Bill at all. On May 18th—the day of the Committee stage of this Bill, a letter appeared in The Times newspaper under the name of Mrs. Mary Whitehouse. She was criticising the Home Office Amendment to provide a legitimate reason, as is now in the Bill. She said:
"It is our contention, as initiators of the campaign"—
mark the words!—
"against child pornography that clause (a) should be removed from the Bill"—
and this is paragraph (a) of the Amendment proposed by the Government—

329
"since it would present defence counsel with what might best be described as the statutory loophole."
The letter went on later to say:
"…if the defence clause to which I have referred is allowed to stand then the Protection of Children Bill will have lost its teeth and the British people who virtually unanimously back the campaign to outlaw child pornography will feel themselves betrayed. More importantly, they are unlikely to forget that the Government did not dutifully—or adequately—protect its children."
My Lords, that portentious warning is given in the name of the "initiators" of this Bill and of the campaign against child pornography. This is the kind of thing that we are up against. My noble friend Lord Longford, himself, the other day opposed the inclusion of the legitimate reason as a defence in the Bill. He wanted to substitute words to the effect that it should be only in the course of duties under the law. After a notable speech by the noble and learned, Lord Scarman, my noble friend Lord Longford withdrew his Amendment, so that the legitimate reason is in the Bill as it applies to Clause 1(b) and (c); and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in moving his Amendment wishes to provide a similar defence for a charge under Clause 1(a). I think that this is right and proper. I think that if there is to be no opportunity for an accused person to offer what he may feel is a legitimate reason (and which he may try to prove to the satisfaction of the court is a legitimate reason) then serious injustice may be done.
I have already indicated that, in Scotland, photographs have been the subject of charges on the grounds of being lewd and libidinous—which means vulgar, vile and detestable—and which it is extraordinarily difficult, I think, for a person of normal emotional balance to regard as indecent. If there is to be no legitimate reason listened to in a court from a person who may be charged with taking such a photograph, I think that it will be a grave weakness of this Bill.
I hope sincerely that my noble friend will not seek to occupy the position of a Government spokesman, adopting a Government point of view on this Bill. We can listen to what advice he may give; but I think that the House is entitled to reach its own conclusion on a matter of this kind. It is a simple question of justice, and another place will have the opportunity of considering the changed form
330
and, as the noble Lord pointed out a few moments ago, it will be refreshing to see another place giving detailed consideration to the Bill, because they have given none so far.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I should like to take up the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. If I am to be described as a midwife, then I am proud. I only hope that I am not a shrill one. This Bill was a Private Member's Bill; it is a Private Member's Bill; but there has been agreement between the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and myself, and I should hope that the House would have approved of a method of co-operation between the Government Front Bench and the Opposition Front Bench.
3.54 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. With some experience of law reform, I think that there is good law reform and bad law reform. Good law reform takes place when a body like the Law Commission consider a particular subject and what, if any, changes should be made. They get out a working paper of their proposals and then, for a considerable period of time, there is a great deal of consultation between them and everybody who might be affected by the proposed changes in the law. It is only then that they come forward with their report and proposals for amending legislation. Bad law reform takes place when there is some article in a newspaper, say, the News of the World, or some scare, as a result of which there is a demand for instantaneous legislation—and instantaneous legislation is almost invariably bad.
I approach this Bill on the footing of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Harris at Second Reading, when he explained to us, first, that the Home Office had consulted with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police who, with great respect, are in a much better position to know than my noble friend Lord Longford or Mrs. Whitehouse, that there was no evidence whatever that there had been any current increase in pornographic photographs of children. And, secondly, that if there were, then, with one small exception, clearly stated by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on Second Reading, the police had ample power to deal with them. There was really only one small exception

331
which needed to be covered. I should have thought that some defence for (a) was equally relevant to (b) or (c).
This has really been a most well intentioned campaign arising out of ill-informed newspaper articles. The Law Commission themselves had provided legislation for what they thought ought to be done in this sort of field, of pornographic films, et cetera. There has not been Government time to deal with that. The Government, on the other hand, have referred the whole question of obscenity to a Committee. It seems to me rather odd, when this Committee is still sitting, that we should be faced with this demand for instant legislation. For those reasons I would support this Amendment.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I should like to say from these Benches that there has been nothing said at this stage that is new and that was not said at the Committee stage. At that time, I felt that the Minister put forward a very good argument and I should certainly advise my noble friends on these Benches not to accept this Amendment.
I should also like to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. Without exception, I think, on every Amendment to which he has spoken, he has introduced a somewhat snide attack on my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I felt that that was rather unfair. I admire the noble Lord for his courage in standing up for something which I think is unpopular and for earning what could be the title, "the toast of the pornographers" in supporting them. I know that he does it from his own personal convictions of freedom, and I admire him for it; but I do not believe in what he says. I do not think that anything new has been said and I do not think that we should support this Amendment.
4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of LEICESTER: My Lords, I should like to say a word about this. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, introduced this Amendment in extremely moderate tones, and others have taken up the theme in a rather more emotional way, using the opportunity of the Amendment to voice again their general dislike of the
332
Bill itself. They are entirely entitled to that line of policy if they so choose; but it is a mistake to go into such things as the originators of the campaign, Press articles and matters of that kind. We are concerned with the Bill which has been laid before the House—that and none other—and the Amendments that are being proposed to it.
I cannot think that any great harm would be done if the Amendment were introduced; but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will not think that we are in any way convinced by the arguments that he used, which seem to me to be extremely far-fetched. First, he has to say all the time that we are talking about photographs that might be judged to be indecent. I suppose from the point of view of law one has to safeguard every conceivable situation; but if one really thinks that somebody is going to pry into the inner laboratory photographs of a surgeon or a physician, or into the records of a police officer who is concerned after an inquest or something of that kind, and bring a charge that the photographs involved are indecent, he must have a very lively imagination. I am inclined to vote against the Amendment, not because of the Amendment itself but because of the spirit in which it is being supported, but not by the noble Lord who moved it.
Baroness GAITSKELL: I should like strongly to support this Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I am not a lawyer but the Bill has great dangers in various areas. This Amendment puts a stop to some of them.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, I want to say a word in support of the Amendment. We shall listen with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has to say. But we cannot too often say that it is tremendously important that whatever safeguards there are in the way of approval by the DPP, it would be wrong that we should pass a Bill in a form which means that totally innocent people are guilty of breaking the law whether or not they are prosecuted. That is a statement of principle which is very nearly unarguable. It applies whether or not people rummage about in files.

333
I remain absolutely aghast at the argument of the right reverend Prelate, who said that he was inclined to vote against the Amendment, not on the Amendment itself but on the spirit in which it is supported. This Bill is likely to be on the Statute Book for a long time. During that period people may or may not be prosecuted. I tend to the view of my noble friend that not many of them will be prosecuted. Nevertheless, it will be there as a criminal statute. It will apply to people long after the right reverend Prelate and I are dead and gone, and long after everyone has forgotten whether or not the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, made a splendid speech or a bad speech.
We are concerned with what goes on the Statute Book. This Amendment must improve the Bill and no serious argument has yet been produced against it. That is why I hope that the Amendment can be accepted or, if not, that your Lordships will carry it.
4.5 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if I may deal briefly with what my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby said when he appealed to me only to give the House advice, I am not quite sure what else I can give other than advice. It is foolish for me to pretend that I can drive through a Home Office view on this matter in the teeth of fierce opposition from every quarter of the House. I can only tell him what our judgment is on this matter; that is, that this Amendment would not improve the Bill. The House, as he said, must reach its own conclusion. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that the number of prosecutions involved in this limited area of the Bill might be fairly small. I would not disagree with that.
Nevertheless, we have to look at the problem which has been identified in this Bill before coming to a conclusion on it. Before addressing myself to the terms of this Amendment, should like to deal with the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner when he said that good law reform to some substantial degree came from the Law Commission. I agree. But a great deal does not; it comes regularly before both
334
Houses of Parliament. I agree with the implication of his remark that hurried legislation can often be very bad legislation. That is certainly true of the issue we were discussing only a short time ago, the 1911 Official Secrets Act. There have been a series of problems which have arisen as a result of the speed with which that legislation was pushed through Parliament.
We can hardly say that about this Bill. We have given the most meticulous care to discussing every aspect of this legislation. These Amendments will go back for discussion in another place, perfectly properly, so that they may come to a conclusion on the matter. We have discharged our responsibilities so far as this particular Amendment is concerned in the appropriate fashion.
If I may return to the language of the Amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I dealt during Committee with our reasons for drafting the defence so that it applied only to offences of distributing or showing indecent photographs of children and of possessing such photographs for those purposes; but I welcome the opportunity of saying a little more about our attitude towards allowing the defence to those charged with the offence of taking indecent photographs of children.
We have to recognise—it is self-evident—that what we are essentially concerned with in these offences is child pornography. There have been arguments based on the need to exempt certain kinds of photographs, such as those which parents may take of their unclothed children—quite reasonably, we have devoted a great deal of attention to that—or which may be taken for medical or scientific purposes or by the police in the wake of sexual offences committed against children. Our view is that the test of indecency already exists to separate photographs which are offensive from those which are innocent or which have been taken with a clinical rather than a prurient approach. I quoted during the Committee stage judicial authority for the proposition that the simple nakedness of children is not indecent, and I do not believe that ordinary parents are going to be in the least vulnerable in respect of pictures they take of their children on the beach or in the garden without clothes. I do

335
not believe that that is a real problem. Nor do I think that a responsible medical journal is likely to print photographs with the kind of ingredients additional to simple nakedness which a court is likely to find in their context—and I do not believe that the concept of indecency can be divorced from the context—are indecent.
Arguments have also been put forward in relation to the photograph which accidentally turns out to be indecent, but this case can be overstressed. I have already made clear, as I did in a fair degree of detail in Committee, that photographs of naked children are by themselves unlikely to be indecent, and I do not think we need worry about the case where a naked child intrudes on a photographed beach scene. It seems right otherwise to place responsibility on the photographer for what he photographs; but in the case of a genuinely unintentional indecent photograph, I should have thought it perfectly appropriate to rely on the discretion of the Director of Public Prosecutions in giving his consent to a prosecution.
The purpose of the defence in the Bill is not to remove liability in respect of photographs which are unobjectionable—because we think that is done already by the test of indecency—but to allow necessary and desirable uses of photographs which are clearly objectionable. The nature of those uses has been discussed during earlier stages of the Bill but, briefly, we are thinking in terms of use by the police, the courts, the Home Office and indeed the research worker. The question which the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, prompts is whether, in addition to certain people being allowed to make use of photographs already in existence, they should be allowed to use children for the purpose of taking indecent photographs. That would surely be quite outside the intention of the Bill. To allow limited uses of photographs which come to light is entirely a different matter from permitting children to be photographed indecently, and I think we should avoid giving the impression, by passing this Amendment, that the indecent photography of children should ever be a lawful activity.
336
The Government's view continues to be that it is right to provide certain defences to those in possession of indecent photographs of children in circumstances we described at some length during previous stages of the Bill. Our view also is that it would be inappropriate for the same defences to be open to those who take those photographs. In the circumstances, I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, will not press this Amendment.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, this Amendment was intended as an extremely modest suggestion to deal with an eventuality that I recognised was likely to be largely a hypothetical one. I had no intention of prompting the issue to be joined between those who believe this Bill happens to be a tremendous step forward against a grave social evil, and those of your Lordships who believe it to be a retrogressive measure. I myself do not fall into either camp. I believe this is a useful and sensible little measure which may perform some modest purpose.
Having said that, I am bound to say that I find the answer given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, not entirely convincing as regards the point that I, at least, sought to raise on this Amendment. I find it difficult to see why, for example, police officers should be put in the position where they are technically committing an offence: that a police officer, who might take a photograph of a grossly indecent act involving a child for use as evidence in a case—and these days there are very often cases where videotape recordings are made of offences actually being committed—would find himself without any defence under the Act.
Having said all that, I am myself not minded to regard this matter as of such importance as to seek to press it to a Division. I hope that those who are sponsoring the Bill, together with the Government, will consider very carefully when the Bill goes back to the other place the observations made by your Lordships during our debates. I would ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw the Amendment.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Is it your Lordships' pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Object !
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The question is that Amendment No. 1 be agreed to.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
4.14 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
("(6) Offences under this Act shall be included in sections 17 and 22 of the Extradition Act 1870 and sections 16 and 17 of the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967 (application to Channel Islands, Isle of Man and United Kingdom dependencies).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suppose this is where I am deserted by friends of the libertarian society, where people can behave reasonably without being harassed by repressive legislation. This Amendment, which I beg to move, seeks to relieve the authorities from chasing round the world for people they cannot now get back. We cannot get Mr. Biggs back from South America; we cannot get back a certain gentleman from Malta—and look how long it is taking to get Mr. Tarling back to Singapore! Extradition is a long, painful and expensive business, in which nations may suffer humiliation at the hands of others.
In the case of murder, you know there is a crime; you know there is somebody who has committed a crime. You have a strong suspicion that a certain person can be asked to answer a charge; so one seeks, if he has left the country, to get him back. A train robber has robbed somebody; there is no question or doubt about it. He has stolen a lot of money. But when you come to a person charged with taking or distributing indecent photographs you are in an entirely different field of criminal law.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said in the course of the Report stage that indecency is what decent people think to be indecent. That is the charge upon which extradition proceedings presumably would rest. I do not know whether or not we want to become the laughing-stock of the world, but I cannot believe that we want to spend any of the
338
resources of the nation in fruitless attempts to get people back from other countries on the kind of charge that might be made under the Bill, and therefore my Amendment restricts proceedings for extradition to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man and United Kingdom Dependencies. That seems to me to be quite enough. After all, the kind of crime for which we might seek to get an accused person back may not be a crime in the country to which he has gone and they will not understand what we are doing.
I know, of course, that these matters become subject to the judgment of authorities, but I see no reason at all why one should pass a Bill, which clearly has flaws and weaknesses in it, in the hope that somebody else will make common sense of it in the course of its administration. I think, therefore that we ought to be reasonable in restricting the area of attempts to recover people who are chargeable under the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, before I turn to my noble friend's Amendment, it may be helpful if I explain what Clause 1(6) does. It makes offences under this Bill extraditable under the Extradition Act 1870 and the Fugitive Offenders Act 1967. This is done by adding the offences to the Schedule to each Act which sets out the list of offences for which extradition may be granted under that Act. The second part of subsection (6) of Clause 1 ensures, first, that the offences are extraditable in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man by extending Section 22 of the 1870 Act and Section 16 of the 1967 Act to the subsection. Provision is also made for making the offences extraditable in United Kingdom Dependencies by extending Section 17 of the 1870 Act and Section 17 of the 1967 Act to the subsection. Subsection (2) of Clause 8, which extends subsection (6) of Clause 1 to Scotland and Northern Ireland, ensures that the offences are also made extraditable throughout the United Kingdom.
It is right that these offences should be made extraditable, for they are serious offences; but I should perhaps remind your Lordships that extradition is based on the principle of reciprocity. This means that we shall only be able to seek the extradition of a person accused or convicted of one of these offences from a State

339
with which not only do we have extradition arrangements, but where the same acts are also criminal offences. That precisely meets the point that my noble friend Lord Houghton raised a few moments ago. As I have made clear, the principle of reciprocity is absolutely essential to extradition arrangements.
Turning now to the precise language of my noble friend's Amendment, it has the effect of removing the core of subsection (6) of Clause 1, which makes offences extraditable, and substituting for it a provision which I am afraid has no effect at all. To add the offences under the Bill to Sections 17 and 22 of the 1870 Act, and to Sections 16 and 17 of the 1967 Act, achieves nothing, for those sections simply provide for the extension of the relevant Act to the islands or the Dependencies. As I have explained, the offences are set out in the Schedules to the two Acts, and it is to these Schedules that offences under this Bill should be added. In the light of what I have said, I hope that my noble friend will not press this Amendment, because its passage would add nothing at all. On the central question which he raised about general extradition arrangements, I also hope that I have said something which will satisfy him on one of his main anxieties.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I know that these Home Office briefs put as many obstacles as possible in the way of trying to apply a fairly common sense and reasonable principle. But, if I may say so, the job of Ministers, sometimes, is to brush aside briefs of that kind and look objectively at what it is proposed to do. Presumably, if we had no Bill such as this, there could be no extradition on matters arising under this Bill. Therefore. I cannot see that there would be any reciprocity between a Government who might have different or more repressive laws than ourselves, and this country which might decide in its wisdom not to have them. So that reciprocity is scarcely an argument here, when we are creating a new crime in this country which makes no difference at all to whether similar acts are criminal offences in other countries.
This is the kind of baffling problem that laymen, such as myself and other noble Lords, have when proposals of this kind
340
have not been thoroughly analysed by people competent to look at them from a legal point of view, bearing in mind what is the object of the Bill. Therefore, I do not feel willing to withdraw anything. If the House likes to reject the Amendment it can do so, but I am not in the mood to surrender at any stage on this Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 3 [Offences by corporations]:
4.23 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 13, leave out ("neglect") and insert ("wilful negligence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment refers to words used in Clause 3 of the Bill relating to offences by corporations. Here there may be legal arguments and questions about the use of words, but when one looks in a common sense way at the meaning of the words in the Bill it seems to me that some qualification should be made on the use of the word "neglect". The Bill states, at line 13 on page 3,
"…or was attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body".
Neglect can be accidental, it can be due to lack of proper attention, it can be due to pressure of work or it can be due to being distracted at a crucial moment in the handling of certain matters. Therefore, I want to provide that if any charge is to be made on the neglect of an officer of a corporate body—and that is what we arc talking about—we should understand that it is a form of culpable neglect.
Most of the revenue laws refer to "wilful default" and if the word "neglect" is used it is in connection with wilful default. But here the Bill refers to,
"…the consent or connivance of, or was attributable to any neglect".
I do not like the words "any neglect", and therefore I propose to insert the words "wilful negligence". Surely, in a matter of this kind, if a person is to be charged, there should be some evil in his mind at the particular time; or, if there was no evil in his mind, there should be some culpable indifference to what was happening, either on his own act or on the act of someone else. I am trying to lessen

341
what I think are the absurdities of this Bill. I believe that the whole Bill is a nonsense, as I have said before, and I want to take out of it some of the most objectionable features. This may be a small point, but it could in certain circumstances be important. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has made out a good case for this Amendment, as indeed he did for one or two Amendments at earlier stages of this Bill. Therefore, I should like to support him in this Amendment.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I have an ugly suspicion that I shall not satisfy my noble friend Lord Houghton, who said on the last occasion I am sure in the most amiable of spirits, that it is the duty of Home Office Ministers to brush aside their briefs and make what I think he described as a common sense decision, or something of that kind. He said that it was incumbent upon Ministers to do that. I should be slightly surprised if my noble friend, in his very distinguished periods in office as a Minister, took a similar view, because if he had done so we should have on the Statute Book a whole series of provisions of a kind which was embodied in the last Amendment, and which would have absolutely no statutory effect whatever.
As regards the Amendment, I have to say that Clause 3 and this provision is common to a great deal of our Statute Law. It is a provision which we in this House approve in new legislation several times a year, and which has been in use for very many years indeed. But that is certainly no reason why we should not, from time to time, examine more closely what it is that we are doing, and my noble friend Lord Houghton has raised the kind of issue which it is right to look at with some degree of care.
The purpose of the clause is to place some personal liability on those who are responsible for the conduct of companies. The principle is well established and gives rise to no controversy; in the context of the present Bill, not to include such a provision might lead to the situation where a person trading in child pornography was able to hide behind the facade of a limited company. So, although the
342
company he owned could be fined, the evidence linking the individual with the offence was insufficient to warrant his being charged as a principal and being liable to be imprisoned.
The Amendment which has been moved by my noble friend substitutes the test of wilful negligence for that of neglect. I think it would be helpful if I said a little more about what will constitute an offence under the existing Bill. This is not a case where we are seeking to say that it will be an offence if a particular act is neglected to be done. That is not the point at issue. We are dealing with a case where an offence under the Bill has been committed by a company and where the commission of the offence was due to the act or default of an officer of that company. This does not mean that every officer of a company is expected so to act as to ensure that no offence is ever committed by the company; rather, the prosecution has to prove that an individual neglected what were properly his duties as an officer of the company and that, as a result of that neglect, an offence under the Act was committed.
Given the kind of offences which are created by the Bill, it does not seem unreasonable that the responsible officers of a company should be required to ensure that such offences are not committed. If the law places such a duty on them, then again it does not seem unreasonable to say to them that they will incur personal liability if they neglect it. To make the test one of wilful negligence instead tilts the balance in favour of the accused person in what I think is an undesirable way. I doubt whether it is right to allow a director to admit that his company sold child pornography because he neglected to prevent it, but to plead nevertheless that his negligence was not wilful.
I made it clear at the beginning of what I have said that Clause 3 is in the form of the standard provision of offences by corporations. The standard form penalises officers to whose "neglect" an offence was attributable and, for the reasons I have already given, I think it would be wrong to depart from the standard form in the present Bill.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister

343
whether I heard him say "the offences created under this Bill"? This seems to me to be a very astonishing sentence.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, in other words, the offences which are created when the Bill is on the Statute Book.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I do not believe that this country should be governed entirely by precedent or standard form. The duplication of standard forms into laws generally may ignore the particular nature of the offences with which Bills are dealing. My noble friend—I still call him that—
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY:—explained the meaning of the words "any neglect". But why cannot neglect of duty, or default, be included here? It seems to me that in the context of this Bill the use of the standard form gives the impression that the Bill is more vicious than it is—and it is rather bad, anyway. In dealing with an offence of this kind—of a particular, peculiar and complex nature—I believe that one should spell out a little more intelligently and helpfully what one means. The English language is not so poor in its flexibility and its alternative use of words that we cannot define more clearly that "any neglect" does not mean "any neglect", but that it means some kinds of neglect—some neglect which has culpability in it through neglect of duty, which can be serious, or default in fulfilling a particular obligation.
I am not a lawyer, but I think I can see the sense of what I am driving at here. However, it is common form. Nobody thinks again; somebody stuck it there a long time ago; probably it relates to company law; certainly it does not relate to income tax. And so we go on and on. Surely, the day will come when this kind of procedure will be received with the impatience with which I receive it now. I am usually long ahead of my time. I believe that one day Parliament will not be prepared to put up with this method of legislation. It will want to impose upon our legislative language and system the clear intentions of what the community wishes to do.
I am not prepared, therefore, to withdraw the Amendment, because I do not
344
accept all the arguments which my noble friend uses. If any further thought is to be given to this matter, let it be given in another place, but I certainly do not believe that these words should be left in the Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 9 [Short title, extent and commencement]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 6, at beginning insert ("Section 8 of this Act shall come into force forthwith, but otherwise").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is designed to save time in applying the provisions of the Bill in Northern Ireland. As the Bill is presently drafted, its commencement is delayed for one month after Royal Assent, but the effect of applying that rule to Clause 8 is that no steps can be taken during that month to make an Order in Council under the procedure there laid down. We therefore propose by this Amendment bringing Clause 8 into force immediately the Bill is passed so that it should be possible without delay to put arrangements in hand for these provisions to be applied in Northern Ireland, so that they can come into force in Northern Ireland as soon as possible after they have been brought into effect in England and Wales. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Faithfull.)
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I oppose the Motion. Since I expressed criticisms of this Bill during its Second Reading some weeks ago and more recently at the Report stage, I have not received a single letter of disapproval. Although my words, which were severe, were widely broadcast during the radio reporting of the proceedings of this House and have received wide publicity in the Press, not a single letter has come my way from anybody expressing disapproval of the stand I have taken on

345
the Bill. On the contrary; I have received many letters supporting what I am doing.
What I cannot understand is why people should admire what is believed to be my courage. I thought that this House was the House of courage. I thought that this House was that part of Parliament in which we could all speak our minds and utter the truth, as we see it. We are fortunate, in a sense, in not having to trim what we have to say, in not needing to have regard to constituency or sectional opinion. We all know—I do, from 25 years' experience in the House of Commons—what effect strong bodies of local opinion, very often religious and intransigent and some of them malicious, can have upon a Member of Parliament. Here we are free from those contraints. Therefore, I do not believe that to make a stand on this or any other Bill is a matter of courage.
What surprises me is that so few noble Lords have stood up to express a point of view similar to my own. This really astonishes me because, before I came to this House, I thought that this House showed a degree of progressive thought and action which was the envy of many of us in the House of Commons. But a regression seems to have set in and I believe that the proceedings on this Bill are a disgrace to Parliament—literally a disgrace to Parliament. I do not think that this is the way to introduce new crimes with severe penalties into our criminal code.
A noble Lord: Nonsense!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I will not go over the ground that has been gone over before about the way in which this Bill was dealt with in another place and the condition in which it came from another place to your Lordships' House. I believe that behind this Bill there has been a campaign of emotional indignation; people's fears have been aroused, exaggerated statements have been made, tendentious propaganda has been disseminated. Yet it goes on.
I looked at the Young Observer last Sunday and I saw the heading Keep Kids from Porn. It was written by a certain Patricia Hallmey about this Bill and it says:
"Mr. Cyril Townsend, MP, has recently sponsored a Private Member's Bill to clamp down
346
on child pornography. I was astounded to hear that between the ages of 14 and 16 a child is not officially protected as there arc many loopholes in the present law. According to Mr. Townsend's legal advisers you are not regarded as a child in these two years but as a young person and Mr. Townsend told me about the case of John, a 15 year old boy who was lured into posing for indecent photographs and later blackmailed by the photographer, who threatened to show them to his headmaster. When his parents found out they were very upset. Was the photographer prosecuted? No, he escaped through one of the loopholes of the law."
I hope that when this Bill is considered in another place Mr. Cyril Townsend will explain to the House of Commons exactly what this case was. It seems to me that, if a young person is going to be blackmailed by a photographer under the threat of showing a photograph to the headmaster, it would be difficult to know what loopholes in the law exist to escape from the consequences of the act of blackmail. But this seems to relate to the central point of the speeches made in another place by the Minister of State and in your Lordships' House by my noble friend, on the Second Reading of the Bill in the two Houses, when they both referred to the substantial change which could be made to cover the one gap in the existing law by an amendment of the Indecency with Children Act of 1960. My noble friend referred to this and so did the Minister of State in another place.
Is it not astonishing that, to begin with, Government spokesmen, both in another place and in your Lordships,' House, expressed the view that this Bill was not necessary. I shall not go over the grounds of the arguments used by my noble friend in order to satisfy this House that this Bill was not really necessary. He expressed to us the view that existing legislation was adequate to cope with the type of offence that this Bill proposed to deal with, except in the one respect of between ages 14 and 16. Yet the Government have connived for political reasons in foisting this Bill on to Parliament, because I believe they are afraid of the campaign that would be waged against them if the Bill were not passed and they could be accused of having failed to protect the nation's children.
What is being put across in this situation is nothing short of disgraceful. But there we are. I am not reconciled to the passing of this Bill at all. I think it will be a retrograde step and I sincerely

347
hope that we shall get something more rational and more generally acceptable in this whole difficult field when we get the report of the Williams Committee. There is no doubt that the whole law on indecency and obscenity is in a mess, but it is in a mess because of the difficulties of definition. Attempts are made to define what we mean by the use of certain words, and "indecency" is not defined in this Bill any more than "obscenity" is defined in the obscenity laws. It is bound to be a mess and therefore it is bound to be left to the judgment of juries and courts as to what is indecent and what is obscene. We know that there have been some quite surprising results from attempts to get convictions under existing law, and I believe that we may encounter the same problems again.
That is why, in general, I am against laws which try to define what cannot be defined and which are largely a matter of good taste and good sense and an appreciation of the true values of life. That really is where we ought to be doing our work. I believe it can be done: not by repression, not by turning photographers into criminals, not by turning people into criminals if they pass a photograph from one person to another. I believe it will be necessary for some of us to consider whether we should challenge this law to see what indecency amounts to under its obscure provisions.
I have in my hands, as I had before, photographs which probably some noble Lords would think are indecent and which others would think are beautiful. But that is a difference in approach. Some people's minds are like cesspools and they cannot see anything beautiful about some aspects of human behaviour and human form. I know it is no good going on because the minds of most of your Lordships are made up. In those circumstances, I content myself with registering once again my implacable opposition to this Bill.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I do not want to re-open the merits of this Bill at this stage, let alone the merits of a large number of other Acts of Parliament. What I should like to do from these Benches is to convey our congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull,
348
for undertaking the passage of this Bill in your Lordships' House and, if I may say so, for introducing it at Second Reading in such sensible and practical terms as to remove most, if not all, of the acrimony from your Lordships' discussions.
Perhaps I may also thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for the fact that he has given the most careful consideration in correspondence and in discussion to a number of suggested Amendments and improvements to this Bill. I would hazard the guess that the Bill will reach the Statute Book, and I think it may well be that the measure of its success will be the rarity with which it is used.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, as my noble friend has challenged his noble friends and I am a friend of his I should like to say a few brief words to him. I do not go with him the whole way, but I do go halfway with him. He may rightly accuse me of cowardice in this matter. I do this for two reasons. One is that if one votes against the Bill, that is so easily misinterpreted. This is something which I do not usually take into account when I am speaking about this kind of Bill. The reason why I will not go along with my noble friend the whole way is because this Bill will perhaps have a modicum of effect towards catching and curbing some pornographers. For that reason, if there is a vote on this Bill I personally will abstain, though I do not like the Bill. I think in some ways it is a dangerous Bill. I think many of the arguments have been exaggerated, and very few figures have been produced about the effects of child pornography. I commend noble Lords to read again a letter printed in The Times newspaper, written by Professor Ivor Mills, Professor of Investigatory Medicine at Cambridge, who had all the arguments, and confounded all the arguments of the other side.
Lord SPENS: My Lords, I realise that one is not allowed to raise a point of order in this House—
A noble Lord: Of course you are!
Lord SPENS: I thank the noble Lord. As a matter of procedure, I wonder whether this Bill has yet received a Third

349
Reading. I came into the Chamber rather late, admittedly, but I was here while Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 were being discussed; and after Amendment No. 4 was agreed the noble Baroness opposite moved. That the Bill do now pass. I do not believe that the Bill has yet received the Third Reading.
4.53 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think it has received a Third Reading, and that is why the noble Baroness moved her Motion. Having said that, I think it would be right for me to join with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, who has been responsible for the Bill in this House. It is always a difficult operation in itself to put through a Bill as complex as this, and I should like to associate myself and the Government with what the noble Lord said. At the same time, I would thank my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who has asked a series of questions; he has made his position on the matter absolutely clear. Nevertheless, in legislation of this sort, when one is amending criminal law, it is absolutely right that there should be full debate. We have had full debate, and I think that is to some extent due to the Amendments put down by my noble friend.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, as one who has taken part, albeit a very small part, in our deliberations on the Bill, and who, like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is very concerned about safeguarding the liberties of the individual, I feel it appropriate to say a few words. My general conclusions about the Bill and about the facts which prompted it lie somewhere between those of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I cannot agree with the noble Lord that the evils which the Bill seeks to remedy are illusory or insignificant, or that existing legislation is in every circumstance adequate to deal with them. However, I have not been persuaded that these evils are so great and so widespread as to justify legislation being pushed through in a haste which amounts almost to panic. In my experience, such as it is, of Parliament, legislation which is hastily rushed through—that is to say, without
350
adequate time for discussion and, almost as important, adequate time for reflection, between the various stages of the Bill and between the time the Bill leaves one House and reaches another—more often than not turns out to be defective to some extent, frequently in a fairly disastrous manner.
Only the other day the London Evening Standard, which your Lordships will know is a responsible and reputable newspaper, published a charming photograph of a shirtsleeved policeman holding a small naked child by the hand somewhere near the Serpentine in Hyde Park, on one of the very few warm days we have had this summer. In its caption to the photograph, the Standard expressed the fear that this might be the very last occasion on which it could publish such a photograph because this Bill, if it became law, might make it risky to do so. Let us hope that these fears are unfounded and that your Lordships and the Home Office between them have got the Bill right, because, after all, it has been almost entirely rewritten since reaching this House. If it has not been got right, and if it transpires in two or three years' time that individual liberties are menaced in some unforeseen way by some provision of the Bill, the fault will not lie with the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull (who I know to have been most scrupulous and meticulous, and to have done her very best), nor will it lie with the Home Office, despite their having legal expertise at their fingertips, because even experts need time. The fault will lie with the Government and the Opposition, or perhaps Oppositions, all of whom seem to be falling over themselves to be seen—and "seen" is the operative word—to be assisting to get the Bill on to the Statute Book before the impending General Election. Consideration of short-term Party political advantage, particularly when combined with populist emotionalism, rarely forms a good basis fir sensible and well thought-out legislation.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, this is a small Bill dealing with one point which may hurt perhaps a few children, but I would submit that a Bill is worth while if it prevents one child being hurt. I must assure your Lordships that in my experience as a social worker children have been hurt. Therefore, I think this Bill is

351
worthy of consideration by your Lordships' House. Having said that, I also believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that it is right that the individuals' rights should be safeguarded, but I do not think that is incompatible with compassion or incompatible with setting limits on what can be done by certain people to hurt a few children for gain.
I should like also to thank all Members of your Lordships' House, and, if I may join with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I should like to thank Lord Houghton for his participation. I would hope that it will be considered that your Lordships' House has taken this Bill seriously, has given it time and has given it thought. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and other noble Lords who have taken part, but in particular Lord Harris of Greenwich, who has done so much work, has co-operated and has carried through this Bill in a very large measure.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Alport): The Question is that this Bill do now pass. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content"; to the contrary, "Not-Content". I think that the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed; pursuant to Standing Order No. 50, a Division, therefore, cannot take place and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1974 (AMENDMENT) BILL
5.2 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power for authorities to incur expenditure to remedy injustices caused by maladministration]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, after ("1974") insert ("and section 29 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I should like to associate with it—so that I may move them formally in due course—Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5. The purpose of these Amendments is to extend the operation of the Bill to Scotland. In another place, because of the requirements of time, it was not possible to move these Amendments because the Bill might not have reached us at all. However, the necessary instructions were given which would have enabled the House to extend the Bill to Scotland if it had been so minded. The money resolution was also tabled which would have made it possible for the Amendment which is now before your Lordships as No. 2, but which I shall speak to afterwards.
My noble friend Lady Birk made it clear on Second Reading that the Bill had the support of the Government. As was stated at that time, it arose from views expressed by my noble friend Lady Serota, Chairman of the Commissioners, and the same views are held in Scotland. I do not think that I need take up any more of the time of the Committee in explaining the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. Subsection (2) presently provides that expenditure incurred by local authorities under the Bill will not count as relevant expenditure for rate support grant purposes. This limitation was originally included because in accordance with House of Commons Standing Order No. 91, it was not possible for a private Member to introduce a Bill, the main purpose of which was to create a charge on public funds. A money resolution may, however, be tabled by the Government after Second Reading in the Commons so that the Bill may contain financial provisions. That was, in fact, done and there is now therefore no need

353
to have this subsection in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Short title and extent.]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("1974 (Amendment Act").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment when I moved Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 7, leave out from ("Act") to the end of line and insert ("does not extend to Northern Ireland").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
The Title:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5:
Line 2, after ("Commissioners") insert ("and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1975 with respect to investigations by the Commissioner for Local Administration in Scotland").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

RATING (DISABLED PERSONS) BILL
5.9 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Rebates for hereditaments with special facilities for disabled persons]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 12, after ("garage") insert (", carport").
The noble Lord said: I wish to associate with this Amendment, Amendments Nos. 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14 and 16 which in due, course I shall move formally. The purpose of these Amendments is to carry out a promise which I made on Second Reading that Amendments would be introduced to make it perfectly clear that the intention of the Bill, when reference was made to garages and land, was to include "carport". It is believed that it would have been so regarded, but the matter having been raised I have felt—and I have had the consent of the Government in this connection—that we should insert "carport" to remove any doubt about the matter whatsoever. I beg to move.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. I believe that this matter was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, on Second Reading. Unfortunately, she is unable to be here today; she had hoped to arrive in time. I should like to offer her thanks for this.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 16, at end insert (",carport").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord SANDYS: As we are about to pass Clause 1, this would be a convenient opportunity to refer to one particular very small problem of which I think your Lordships should be aware. In Clause 1 we refer to a very important item, the wheel chair. That expression occurs in line 9 on page 2. We are not normally given to correcting the way in which words are set out by means of an Amendment. Therefore, I would ask at this stage whether, when the Bill is reprinted the two words could be set together to form one word. That would be very much better for the rest of the Bill and also its interpretation on future occasions. That same expression, "wheel chair",

355
recurs again on page 5 and once more at a later stage in the Bill at line 30 of Schedule 1.
Lord HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for drawing attention to this. At line 9 on page 2 of the Bill "wheel chair" is printed as two separate words, but at line 10 on page 5 that useful piece of punctuation, a hyphen, has been inserted. I presume that the noble Lord would accept the insertion of a hyphen; that would meet his purpose. At any rate, whichever way it is done, it should be the same throughout the Bill.
My attention was drawn to a sheet of paper headed "Corrections" which was issued, and on which, having made inquiries, I find that no action needs to be taken because they are corrections to the print which can be made automatically. I would assume that the correction of the expression "wheel-chair" can similarly be made without the need for any Amendment being put down. I would agree with the noble Lord that the idea should be conveyed that it is one word, and that would be met by the use of the hyphen that is used on page 5.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Administration and appeals]:
5.14 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("(5A) The Secretary of State may refer any question of law arising under this Act to the High Court for determination and on any such reference or on any appeal to or beyond the county court under subsection (5) above the Court may order the Secretary of State to pay the costs of any other person, whether or not the decision is in that other person's favour and whether or not the Secretary of State appears on the reference or appeal.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the question of determination of disputes. It is an important matter with which we are here concerned. In this Amendment we return to Section 94(8) of the Social Security Act 1975, which repeats, in rather different terms, essentially what was in the National Insurance
356
Act 1946. The 1946 Act has stood the test of time in regard to disputes of this sort. We believe that it would be beneficial to introduce the Amendment as printed. It would be a matter of some doubt at the present moment, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will perhaps he able to advise us in this regard. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: I think that I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Baronesses who have supported him in this Amendment that this would not be a desirable Amendment to make. The comparison which he has made is not a valid one because in that case the Minister is a party and, therefore, it would be appropriate for a court reference to take place. However, those reasons do not apply here.
The Secretary of State will not he a party to a rebate application, and will have no reason to be involved in any particular case. It is, in fact, basic to the British legal system that issues in the court should be brought by interested parties, and there is no provision for seeking general rulings by Ministers or anyone else on issues in which they are not directly involved.
However, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that Clause 3(5) of the Bill already provides access to the County Court by way of appeal against the decision of the rating authority to refuse an application for a rebate. If the County Court rejects the appeal, the applicant can appeal further to the Court of Appeal and could even bring it to your Lordships' House. I also understand that legal aid would be available in appropriate cases for such appeals. This seems to me to be the right way for appeals to be handled, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will accept that the Bill makes provision in the proper way, whereas to involve the Secretary of State would not be normal practice at all.
Lord SANDYS: Although recognising that provision appears to be made in Clause 3(5) for this situation, the situation is a little more complicated by the fact that, although the Secretary of State should not be involved in a situation of this sort, cases can arise where he may be

357
advised to do so. However, I think that it is unlikely and with the permission of the Committee I shall be glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 4:
After clause 3, insert the following new clause:
Forgoing of attendance allowance in certain circumstances.
(".—(1) Where an attendance allowance is paid to or in respect of a disabled person or where a disabled person who is substantially dependent upon a wheelchair for indoor locomotion resides in a hereditament within paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of subsection (2) of section 1 of this Act the person entitled to a rebate by virtue of any one or more of those paragraphs may elect to forgo such rebate and receive instead an alternative rebate equal to one half of the rates chargeable on the hereditament for the rebate period.
(2) The rating authority may, if they think fit, increase the alternative rebate specified in subsection (1) above by an additional amount up to the whole of the rates chargeable on the hereditament for the rebate period.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: I am afraid that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept this Amendment. The basic underlying principle of the Bill in relation to disabled persons living in private houses is that they should be given rate relief in so far as their disability makes it necessary for them to have special features in their accommodation that makes it more expensive and hence, more highly rated than it would have needed to be if they had not been disabled. Thus, if a disabled person needs a second bathroom, or a separate bedroom, or space for treatment facilities, or extra space throughout for a wheel-chair—I should perhaps point out that in my brief the word "wheel-chair" is spelled as one word—then these features in so far as they make the house more expensive and more highly rated than it would otherwise have needed to be are to be relieved of rates. This is the principle followed in Clauses 1 and 4.
The new clause now proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the noble Baroness departs altogether from this basic principle and proposes instead a 50 per cent. rate relief for all disabled persons receiving attendance allowances or substantially dependent on a wheelchair,
358
with an option for the rating authority to give additional relief up to 100 per cent. of the full rates. This would in effect, put disabled persons on a par with charities which, under a different section of the General Rate Act, are entitled to 50 per cent. mandatory rate relief, with a discretion for local authorities to give additional relief up to 100 per cent.
I would suggest, however, that this is not the right analogy. Disabled people living in houses and flats receive benefit from local authority services in the same way as other householders, and it does not seem right that they should be relieved of the obligation to pay rates on such a large scale just because they arc disabled. The Bill already provides that they should be given relief in so far as their disability makes their accommodation more expensive than the normal person's. But I do not think that they ought to have more favourable treatment than that.
If I understand the feeling aright, there is a strong desire among disabled people that they should have sufficient income from whatever source—and I fully recognise that there is more to be done to ensure that this is so for all disabled people. But having obtained a sufficient income, I should have thought it better that disabled people should then pay their rates in the same way as other citizens, subject only to the special relief given under the Bill for the extra rates they incur because of their disability.
This is the principle, but if the Amendment were to be effected it would really take the measure of relief far beyond the present position. The object of the Bill is not to extend relief, nor to diminish relief, but to remove the doubts that have been brought into the existing legislation as a result of court decision. It is to make sure that the reliefs which it was believed disabled people were entitled to in the original legislation should be made absolutely certain.
In this connection, perhaps this would be an appropriate time when I might refer to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, in relation to the relief for garages. She pointed out that in some cases the figure of £25 in the Bill could, in fact, mean that there would be a reduction in the amount of relief given, because although £25

359
was accepted as being generally acceptable, the noble Baroness pointed out that, for instance, in London the cost of a garage might be very much in excess of this, and the effect of the Bill, if it were unchanged, would be to cause a reduction to be given in the amount of relief which hitherto has been granted. I accept—and in consultation with my noble friend Lady Stedman I have found that the Government agree—that it is not the intention of the Bill that anyone getting relief at present in a case such as this should be deprived of part of it, and I intend to submit at the next stage of the Bill an Amendment to make it clear that such a reduction will not take place.
With these remarks, I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that the purpose of the Bill is to place present reliefs beyond doubt, and because of the Amendment that I shall be moving to make certain that this present relief on garages is in no case diminished. I hope, with these explanations, that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will accept that if there is a drawback in the present situation it is that there are perhaps many disabled people who do not have an adequate income. But it is not the purpose of the Bill—and it was never pretended to be the purpose—to put their income into a satisfactory position; it concerns their rating position, in so far as extra requirements which they have are concerned.
Lord SANDYS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for making clear a number of matters which arise out of the whole purport of the Bill. At this stage, I think we ought to return to the purpose of the Bill, which is to put right Section 45 of the General Rate Act 1967. We have previously referred to the case which was known as Vandyk v. Oliver which gave rise to the situation leading to the promotion of this Bill, and I think it would he difficult at this stage to press this Amendment. However perhaps I should refer once again to the remarks made on the parallel case of Almond v. Birmingham Corporation in 1968 which brings this particular situation into sharp relief. This is what Lord Reid said:
"if the scope of section 45 was to be extended far beyond local authorities and charities to many thousands of citizens, many of them ill or handicapped, or if the contrary was the case, Parliament really ought to make its dispositions intelligible."
360
I quoted that extract on Second Reading. It is an important point, taking the whole scope of the Bill and what it seeks to do.
Clearly, with the provisions as set out in this particular Amendment—and there is no question about it—the wish is to extend the scope of the Bill. Having taken the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who, together with his honourable friend in another place is promoting the Bill, I think we would place the Bill in real jeopardy if we sought to extend the remit of what is intended. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Rebates for lands and heritages with special facilities for disabled persons]:
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 13, after ("garage") insert (", carport").
The noble Lord said: I have spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5, line 18, after ("garage") insert (", carport").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 6, line 7, leave out ("rebate shall be proportionately reduced") and insert ("rating authority may, if they think fit, reduce the rebate by the proportionate amount or any lesser amount.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, and I would wish to associate with this Amendment, Amendment No. 15, which is to achieve the same purpose. The Bill at present requires rating authorities to reduce the amount of rebate where the entitlement to it stops during the currency of a rebate period. The Amendment allows them to exercise discretion in the matter of reduction for part of a rebate period for domestic hereditaments. I undertook at Second Reading to table an Amendment which would remove this mandatory requirement on local authorities and give them instead a discretion in the matter. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Rebates for institutions in Scotland for the disabled]:
5.29 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 39, after ("occupied") insert ("or have been provided").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 8, I should like to take Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and speak to all three. They arise on a particular situation, and I think it illustrates the very real difficulties we are up against in trying to promote a rating Bill of this kind. The question arises through the particular situation in regard to a major charity in Scotland known as the Thistle Foundation. A few days ago this Foundation wrote to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, and I think it would be valuable if I read a portion of the letter, although only a portion. The letter said:
"The Bill offers welcome concessions for individual disabled people and for institutions, but it seems likely that in certain circumstances it may not in fact achieve its very laudable objects. My concern is with the Thistle Foundation, a major charity in Scotland providing accommodation and care for the severely physically disabled. The enclosed brochure illustrates the nature and physical characteristics of the Foundation".
A little later it says:
"All the houses are connected together, the central facilities by covered passageways. The Foundation has found itself in an unfortunate position under existing legislation. In a recent judgment, in the Lands Valuation Appeals Court, it was held that the Foundation could not benefit from the provisions of Section 8(1) of the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act 1956 in respect of the houses".
Here is a body which should undoubtedly benefit from rating relief but it appears that it would be very difficult for that body to benefit under the provisions of this Bill. We are placed in a dilemma here and I have moved these three Amendments to remedy the situation so that the Thistle Foundation and other bodies of a similar nature in the United Kingdom could benefit.
It seems that any Bill is always the wrong Bill for promoting alteration to the existing state of statute law. One must reflect on this because here is an opportunity which we might take to examine the situation. If we press forward too many items to include in a Bill of this nature we may jeopardise its passage through another place. On the other hand, it is right and proper to investigate as fully as possible whether these Amendments could so remedy the state of the law as to place the situation in a more beneficial regard. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: In speaking to this Amendment, No. 8, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, referred also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 and, in replying, I shall do the same, although what I have to say will not be the same in relation to each of them. I cannot recommend Amendment No. 8 to the Committee because it would, as Lord Sandys indicated, extend the intention of the Bill much beyond the present position. If we were to give effect to the Amendment, a quite substantial anomaly would be brought into the Bill.
A disabled owner-occupier or the tenant of a privately-rented house will qualify under Clause 4 for a rebate in respect of the special facilities which his house provides, and these are listed in Clause 4(2). The rebate under Clause 4 is, of course, not complete relief; it is a rebate related to the extent of the special facilities. However, the Amendment would place the occupier of a house in the much more advantageous position of getting relief in respect of the whole of his rates, not confined to the special facilities, and it could be given in circumstances where the house had been provided because there was a disabled member of the family, so that the effect of the Amendment would be to apply the relief to them all, although only one member of the family might be affected and no special facilities whatever might be provided. It would, therefore, very much widen the purpose of the Bill.
I do not think Amendment No. 10 would change the meaning of subsection (5) as it stands or add anything to it. In Scotland, the unit of assessment for rating purposes is the lands and heritages comprised in a single entry in the valuation roll. If part of a complex is the subject of a

363
single and separate entry in the valuation roll, that part will constitute lands and heritages in the sense in which that expression is used in Clause 5. The Amendment would serve only to obscure what is at present, I am told, one of the clearest and briefest subsections in the whole Bill, and I hope for that reason that it will not be pressed.
Dealing with Amendment No. 9, the object of Clause 5(2) and the corresponding English provision in Clause 2(2) is simply to list in a clearer and more comprehensible way the categories of institution which are to be relieved from rates. Clause 5(3) and Clause 2(3) take the clarification further by listing explicitly two categories which are not given relief at present and are not to be given relief in future—namely, hospitals and old people's homes.
I should make it clear, however, that these are meant to be fairly broad exclusions. It is certainly not our intention that an institution which would otherwise qualify for relief—for example, a training centre, or an institution providing care for the disabled—should in fact be disqualified merely because there are small subsidiary treatment facilities provided at such a place. Provided the element of treatment is subsidiary or ancillary to the main qualifying purpose, Clause 5(1) and Clause 2(1) ensure that this does not happen and that relief will still be granted to such an institution. It is only where the predominant purpose of an institution is treatment that it comes into the excluded category of Clause 5(3) and Clause 2(3).
I believe this is clear from the Bill as it stands, but in view of the doubts that have been expressed, I will look at the drafting again before Report. In doing so, I will certainly bear in mind the points about the Thistle case which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, made and will take those into account. However, in view of the differentiation I have made in replying to Amendment No. 9 as compared with Nos. 8 and 10, I do not want to raise hopes unduly; I am not giving a definite undertaking to ensure that the Thistle Foundation's properties are brought within the scope of the relief being given. Whether that would be right will depend on the facts of the case and I do not think it would be right to alter the main scheme
364
of the Bill in the interests of the particular body. However, if on merit something should be done—and the Thistle Foundation is a good example of that—then I think it would he right for it to be done and I certainly undertake to have a look at what is intended by Amendment No. 9. I hope, however, that the noble Lord will not press Amendment No. 8 and will not find it necessary to move Amendments Nos. 9 and 10.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, can say how institutions like the Thistle Foundation and the Yorkshire Association for the Disabled, of which I am President, are classed; are they classed as Part III accommodation or as houses? They have houses and hostels within a complex, so they are rather complicated.
Lord HUGHES: It is because of the doubts that have been raised in this matter that I have undertaken to have another look at it between now and Report. It is not a matter which is crystal clear at this stage.
Lord SANDYS: I warmly welcome the attitude to this group of Amendments adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. They give rise to difficulties which we should examine before Report and, if possible, promote we will, Amendments when the time comes. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, for mentioning the complexity of the situation, and I think it would be for the benefit of the Committee if I sought leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Citation, repeals, commencement and extent]:
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Amount of rebate under section 1]:
5.41 p.m.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 10, line 39, at end insert—
("(aa) £15 in the case of an application made by reference to a ("carport").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 11, line 3, after ("garage") insert (", carport").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 11, line 18, after ("garage") insert (", carport").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 11, line 21, leave out ("rebate shall be proportionately reduced") and insert ("rating authority may, if they think fit, reduce the rebate by the proportionate amount or any lesser amount ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HUGHES Lord HUGHES moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 11, line 39, after ("7(a)") insert (",(aa)").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?
Lord SANDYS: On an earlier stage, on Second Reading, we did refer to a number of errors in the printing of the Bill. I hope that these will be particularly referred to, as they do have very great significance. For instance, in Schedule 1, line 35, one should read the figures "1(2)(f)" and not "1(2)(e)". At the top of the next page, page 11, it should read "1(2)(g)"and not"1(2)(f)".
These points are of very great significance in the drafting of this particular Schedule. I hope that they will be taken into account when the time comes.
Lord HUGHES: When I was speaking earlier, I referred to this sheet which had been circulated—a list of corrections which will be made automatically to the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, who drew attention on Second Reading to some of these. The probability is that she is responsible for this document having been produced. In fact, three corrections of that kind are so listed.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for five minutes until 5.50 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.